Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mathiyalagan vs Ganesan
2021 Latest Caselaw 25030 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 25030 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 December, 2021

Madras High Court
Mathiyalagan vs Ganesan on 20 December, 2021
                                                                        C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED: 20.12.2021

                                                      CORAM :

                                     THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                            C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021
                                                       and
                                            C.M.P.(MD) No.7847 of 2021

                Mathiyalagan                                                ... Petitioner

                                                          vs.
                Ganesan                                                     ... Respondent

                PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
                to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22.03.2021 rendered in I.A.No.21
                of 2020 in O.S.No.69 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
                Vedasandur.

                                  For Petitioner   : Mr.S.Kathiravan
                                  For Respondent   : Mr.B.Azhagesh

                                                       ORDER

The plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition challenging the

order passed in I.A.No.21 of 2020 in O.S.No.69 of 2014 dated 22.03.2021 on

the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur.

2.By the impugned order, the learned Judge has dismissed the application

filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The brief facts are as follows:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021

3.The plaintiff had originally filed a suit O.S.No.69 of 2014 for the

following reliefs:-

"a) for specific performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 04.05.2011 directing the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land within a period to be specified by the Court failing which executing the sale deed through process of Court;

b) for a consequential relief of possession of the suit property;

c) alternatively, for recovery of the advance amount with interest at 24% p.a. upto date, namely, Rs.3,56,920-50p with subsequent interest;

d) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and servants from alienating the suit property"

4.It is the case of the plaintiff that he had originally entered into an

agreement of sale dated 04.05.2011 with the defendant in respect of the suit

schedule property. The price agreed for was a sum of Rs.7,87,500/- and a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as advance. The time for completing the sale was a

period of 1 year. However, the defendant kept seeking an extension. Therefore,

another sale agreement dated 15.05.2012 was entered into on the same terms.

Once again, another sale agreement was entered into on 15.05.2013. When the

plaintiff had approached the defendant in the month of February, 2014 to

receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed, the defendant

refused to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.03.2014, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021

calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. A reply containing false

allegations was issued on 26.04.2014 by the defendant, to which an adequate

rejoinder was submitted by the plaintiff on 16.07.2014. Thereafter, the plaintiff

had come forward with the above suit for specific performance.

5.The defendant had filed a written statement denying the execution of

the sale agreement. It was his case that on 17.06.2010, he had borrowed a sum

of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff had got signatures in

several blank papers and this has been misused to create these agreements. The

defendant denied the plea of readiness and willingness as stated by the plaintiff

and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6.Pending the above suit, the plaintiff had come forward with the

impugned application to amend the plaint with regard to the prayer portion and

in paragraph No.11 of the plaint. The plaintiff would submit that although in the

plaint the plaintiff has set out all the agreements of sale, he had however by

typographical error not included it in the relief portion and also in paragraph

No.11. Therefore, he sought to amend the plaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021

7.The defendant had filed a written statement denying the contentions of

the plaintiff and stating that the very agreement of sale is denied by the plaintiff

and therefore, an amendment cannot be ordered.

8.The learned Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur by judgment dated

22.03.2021 had dismissed the said application on the ground that the suit had

been listed for trial on 28.11.2019 and since the plaintiff had not appeared, the

suit had been dismissed for default. Thereafter, it was restored to file. At that

point of time, the plaintiff has come forward with the present application.

Further, the learned Judge had observed that there is no reference to the

agreement of sale dated 15.05.2012 and 15.05.2013 in the plaint and therefore,

it deserves to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before

this Court.

9.Heard the learned counsels on either side.

10.The plaintiff has in very cogent terms set out how he had entered into

an agreement of sale on 04.05.2011, which was thereafter extended on two

occasions and ultimately since the defendant had not come forward to execute

the sale deed, the plaintiff had been constrained to move the Court for specific

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021

performance. Therefore, the observation of the learned Judge that the plaint

does not contain any reference to the other two agreement of sale is per se

wrong and the order insofar as the above observation is concerned clearly

shows the non application of mind on the part of the learned Judge. That apart

since the reference has already been made to the two agreement of sale, no new

contention is sought to be introduced by the plaintiff and no prejudice is going

to be caused to the defendant, as it is for the plaintiff to prove the execution of

these deeds by the defendant. In these circumstances, the order dismissing the

above amendment is totally incorrect and is liable to set aside.

11.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the order

passed in I.A.No.21 of 2020 in O.S.No.69 of 2014 dated 22.03.2021 on the file

of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vedasandur is hereby set aside. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                Index             : Yes / No                                       20.12.2021
                Internet          : Yes / No
                mm


                To

                The Subordinate Judge,
                Vedasandur.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                                    C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021

                                               P.T.ASHA, J.

                                                          mm




                                  C.R.P.(MD) No.1384 of 2021




                                                   20.12.2021



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter