Madras High Court
T.Ramasamy vs Jeyarani @ Ganapathimuthu on 21 December, 2021
CRP.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
1.T.Ramasamy
2.T.Ramasubramanian ... Petitioners
Vs.
Jeyarani @ Ganapathimuthu ... Respondent
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.
407 of 2013 in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Sankarankovil dated 11.08.2014.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondent : Mr.F.X.Eugene
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in
I.A.No.407 of 2013 in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil dated 11.08.2014.
2.The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of
the Additional District Munsif, Sankarankovil. The respondent herein is the
plaintiff in the said suit. Originally, the respondent / plaintiff filed the suit
for permanent injunction, restraining from dividing as house plot, to sell the
same to third party and put up any construction and also a mandatory
injunction to remove the construction and hand over the vacant possession.
During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent herein/ plaintiff filed
an application in I.A.No.407 of 2013 to amend the plaint. After hearing the
matter, the trial Court allowed the amendment application. Challenging the
said order of the trial Court, the petitioner / defendant in the suit, has filed
the present revision petition before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
respondent / plaintiff has taken an inconsistent pleadings which is not
permissible under law and he also placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Gurawara(Dead) thr.
Lrs Vs S.K.Sarwagi & Co.Pvt.Ltd and another reported in (2008) 8 MLJ
307 (SC). He would further submit that subsequent to the filing of this
revision petition, the respondent/plaintiff has divided the plot and sold to
various persons and they have also constructed buildings in the plots. At
this stage, if the Civil Revision Petition is not allowed, much prejudice
would be caused not only to the petitioner but also the purchaser of the said
land. The respondent has taken the amendment petition after a lapse of
fifteen (15) years from the date of the suit. Therefore, the order passed by
the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
4.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the
petitioner herein and others, from alienating the house to third party and
also mandatory injunction. Subsequently, he has filed I.A.No.407 of 2013
to amend the plaint. Though, the petitioner earlier filed a petition claiming
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
the exclusive right over the property, subsequently, the respondent/ plaintiff
has sought the application to amend the plaint as co-owner.
5.Considering the fact that after completion of the pleadings, the trial
also commenced and the P.W.1 was examined in chief and the suit is posted
for cross examination. Since the defendants have denied the title of the
plaintiff, the respondent herein /plaintiff in the suit has filed a petition to
amend the plaint for declaration. The suit is only for permanent injunction,
restraining the petitioner herein and his men from alienating the property,
dividing as house plot and put up construction in the suit property and
subsequently for mandatory injunction. At that stage, though the trial has
commenced, only the respondent herein /plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 in
chief examination and cross examination was not yet commenced, the
amendment of the plaint would not prejudice to the petitioner herein. The
trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the suit, allowed
the said I.A.No.407 of 2013.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 307 (SC)(stated supra). The facts of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
present case is totally different from the judgment referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. However, the suit is pending from the year 2008. Therefore, the
learned Additional District Munsif, Sankarankovil, is directed to dispose the
suit, after completion of the pleadings and additional issues if any framed,
and dispose the suit within six months from today(21.12.2021).
7.With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
stands closed.
21.12.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
pnn
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
pnn
To
The Additional District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.
C.R.P.(MD)No.2675 of 2014
21.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
