Madras High Court
Veeraswami vs Rani on 18 January, 2021
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.PD.No. 4067 of 2016
and
CMP.No.20515 of 2016
Veeraswami ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Rani
2. Balaguru ... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition, set
aside the fair and decretal order passed by the District Munsif Court,
Thiruthuraipoondi, on 27.01.2016 in I.A.No.376/2015 in O.S.No.32/2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sadasivan
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal
order passed in I.A.No.376 of 2015 in O.S.No.32 of 2012 dated 27.01.2016
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi, thereby,
dismissing the petition filed for amending the plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the said suit for recovery of
possession in respect of the suit schedule property. After commencement of
trial, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment to amend the directions /
boundaries of the suit schedule property. The Court below dismissed for the
reason that the petition for amendment was filed on the third occasion.
Even, an earlier occasion, the petitioner failed to note down the mistakes in
the boundaries.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed
amendment sought for by the petitioner does not alter the pleadings for
prayer in the suit. It is only to rectify the error in the directions/boundaries
of the suit schedule property. It would not cause any prejudice to the
respondents and it would not alter the nature and character of the suit. The
amendment sought for by the petitioner is only a clarification of the
directions/boundaries. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (2) MWN (Civil) 83 (The
Managing Trustee, Neycer Educational Trust vs. Vijaya Baskar).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
4. Though notice was served on the respondents and the name is also
printed in the cause list, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents by
persons on through counsel. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for recovery of
position in respect of the suit schedule property. After commencement of
trial, he filed a petition for amendment to amend the directions/boundaries
in the suit schedule property. The amendment sought for by the petitioner is
as follows:-
“tHf;Fiu brhj;J tptuj;jpy; “thjpf;F brhe;jkhd ,lj;jpw;F
bjw;F”vd;W ,Ug;gjpy; bjw;F vd;w thu;ji
; jia ePff; ptpl;L tlf;F
vd;Wk; “KUifad; ,lj;jpw;F tlf;F”vd;W ,Ug;gjpy; tlf;F vd;w
thu;j;ijia ePff; ptpl;L bjw;F vd;Wk; nru;ff; ntz;Lk;
6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment reported in 2016(2) MWN (Civil) 83 (The Managing Trustee,
Neycer Educational Trust vs. Vijaya Baskar), in which, this Court held as
follows:-
“6. The proposition which the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioners has advanced cannot be questioned.
But the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
cannot defeat the substantive justice. In this case, the
Plaintiffs did not seek to amend the content of the Plaint or
even the prayer. There was a mistake, particularly, in
showing the direction in the Plan and the same was sought
to be corrected. Of course, the Plaintiffs belatedly
approached the Court for amendment of the Plaint. It is seen
from the records that the same was pointed out even at the
earliest point of time and also in the Report of the Advocate
Commissioner. But the same could not preclude the Trial
Court from permitting the amendment of the Plan in order to
meet the ends of justice.
7. The Trial Court has relied on the Judgment of the
Apex Court reported in Laxmindas v.Nanabhai, AIR 1964
SC 11, wherein, the Apex Court has held that where no fresh
allegations are added or fresh reliefs are not sought and the
amendment is only by way of clarification in respect of
existing pleadings, the said amendment has to be allowed,
since the same would not cause any prejudice to the
Respondents. In fact, it does not even require any Written
Statement in this regard.
8. Before the Trial Court, the learned Counsel for the
Revision Petitioners relied on the Judgment reported in
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. K.Raheja Development
Corporation, 2014 (2) CTC 655 (SC) : 2014 (2) CCJD 29
SN, and the same was also pressed into service before this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
Court.
In the said case, relief of amendment was negatived
on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Hence, I am
of the view that the Trial Court is correct in distinguishing
the said judgment.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment of this Court reported in 2016 (2) MWN (Civil) 178
(Lakshmanan vs. Mani), in which this Court held as follows:-
“13. It is to be noted that an amendment which, if
allowed, would take away a valuable right of the other side
and would constitute an altogether new plea, cannot be
permitted, as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagan Nath v.Chanda Bhan, AIR 1988 SC 1366. It cannot
be gainsaid that a Court of Law would, as a rule refuse to
allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim
would be barred by limitation on the date of the
Application. However, that is a factor to be taken into
consideration in exercise of the discretion as to whether an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the
power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the
interests of justice. It is to be remembered that the wider
the discretion conferred on a Court of Law under Order 6,
Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the greater ought to be
the care and circumspection on the part of the Court.”
8. From the above decisions, it is clear that in these cases, this Court
held that the petitioner therein sought amendment particularly in showing
the direction in the plan and the same was sought to be corrected. Of course,
the plaintiff therein belatedly approached the Court for amendment of the
plaint. Where no fresh allegations are added or fresh relief of sought for
amendment is only by way of clarification in respect of the existing period,
the said amendment has to be allowed, since the same could not cause any
prejudice to the respondent therein.
9. In the case on hand, though the petitioner sought for amendment on
the third occasion, the amendment sought for by the petitioner does not alter
the pleadings or prayer in the suit and it is only to rectify the error
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
committed in the directions/boundaries in the suit schedule property. It is
only a clarificatory in nature and does not alter the relief or the nature of the
suit. The respondents would not be put to any prejudice by allowing the
present amendment petition. Therefore, the above judgments are squarely
applicable to the case on hand.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed and the order passed in I.A.No.376 of 2015 in O.S.No.32 of 2012
dated 27.01.2016 is set aside. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed. No costs.
18.01.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kv
To
The District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.PD.No.4067 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
CRP.PD.No. 4067 of 2016
18.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
