V.Munirathinam vs The Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 4595 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4595 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2021

Madras High Court

V.Munirathinam vs The Collector on 23 February, 2021

                                                                                      C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2566 of 2017


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED:     23.02.2021

                                                            CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                                C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2566 of 2017

                     V.Munirathinam
                                                         ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

                                                                               -Vs-

                     1.             The Collector
                                    Vellore District
                                    Sathuvachari
                                    Vellore -9.

                     2.             The District Revenue Officer
                                    Collectorate Building
                                    Sathuvachari
                                    Vellore -9.

                     3.             The Revenue Divisional Officer
                                    Collectorate Building
                                    Sathuvachari,
                                    Vellore – 9.

                     4.             The Thasildar
                                    Taluk Office
                                    Velapadi
                                    Vellore.



                     1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2566 of 2017


                     5.           The District Surveyor
                                  Vellore Taluk Office
                                  Velapadi,
                                  Vellore -1.

                     6.           Muthu

                     7.           M.Arulselvakumar ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendant



                     PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
                     Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2017
                     in I.A.No. 1169 of 2016 in O.S.No. 171 of 2013 on the file of the Court of
                     Principal District Munsiff Court, Vellore.
                                                           ***
                                  For Petitioner     :        Mr. T.Anjolie Udayamani

                                  For RR 1 to 5      :        Dr. S.Suriya
                                                              Additional Government Pleader


                                                          ORDER

The Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.

171 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore,

aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No. 1169 of 2016 by order dated

01.03.2017.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2566 of 2017

2. The suit in O.S.No. 171 of 2013 had been filed by the present

petitioner originally against 6 defendants, namely, (1) the Collector, Vellore

District, (2) The District Revenue Officer, Vellore, (3) The Revenue

Divisional Officer, Vellore, (4) The Thasildar, Vellore, (5) The District

Surveyor, Vellore and (6) Muthu, who had been described as son of

Ayyadurai and residing at Melvallam Village, Kattukkanur Post, Vellore

Taluk, and District, seeking a Judgment and Decree against the defendants

for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 5 to grant a separate

patta and separate sub division for the suit schedule mentioned properties in

favour of the plaintiffs and to grant permanent injunction restraining the 6 th

and 7th defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. Thereafter, in view of an intervivos document executed by the

6th defendant in favour of his own son, necessity arose to implead the said

son M.Arul Selvakumar, as a defendant in the suit. It is seen that such

impleading was allowed in I.A.No. 138 of 2014 by order dated 20.03.2014.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2566 of 2017

4. After trial, the suit was decreed. The plaintiff on receipt of the

decree copy found that the name of the 7th defendant, who had been

impleaded by way of the aforementioned application was not found in the

decree. Therefore, an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil

Procedure was filed calling upon the Court to amend the decree by

including the name of the 7th defendant, namely, M.Arul Selvakumar.

5. This application came up for consideration before the learned

District Munsif at Vellore, who, by an order dated 01.03.2017 dismissed the

application, necessitating filing of the present Revision.

6. As a matter of fact, the learned District Munsif appears to have

examined the entire records before passing the order. He had observed in

paragraph 8 of the order that the application seeking amendment was

allowed in I.ANo. 138 of 2014. Thereafter, he also observed that

consequent to such petition being allowed, the petitioner herein had also

filed I.A.No. 428 of 2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code to

actually amend the plaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2566 of 2017

7. In that application, notice was issued to the counsel.

Thereafter, it was posted for counter and disposal and since counter was not

filed, I.A.No. 428 of 2014 was allowed by order dated 11.06.2014. In

paragraph 9 of the order, the Principal District Munsif had also observed as

follows:-

“9. Thereafter, on perusal of the suit notes paper dated 26.06.2014 following order is found “Amendment carried out, APC by 16.07.2014”. On 16.07.2014 the APC was filed on 21.07.2014, the APC checked found correct and issue summons to newly added defendant........”

8. The portion extracted above shows that the petitioner herein

had amended the plaint and had also filed amended plaint copy which was

also checked and verified and was found to be correct. Then, summons was

directed to the newly impleaded 7th defendant.

9. Thus, the plaintiff had done all that he could, pursuant to the

permitting of amendment impleading the 7th defendant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2566 of 2017

10. However, the learned District Munsif had thereafter observed

as follows in paragraph No.11:-

“11. Further on perusal of the Judgment passed by this Court in the short cause title, the 7th defendant name is not found. On perusal of the decree, the 7th defendant name is not found.”

11. The Principal District Munsif had relied on the cause title

given in the Judgment and not in the plaint as amended. He observed that

since in the Judgment, there were only six defendants shown, and in the

decree which naturally follows, only six defendants can be shown. But the

District Munsif had failed to observe that there was an error apparent on the

face of the Judgment itself in so far as the cause title is concerned and the

7th defendant had been omitted to be mentioned. A decree can be amended

and that is the application which the petitioner has filed.