Madras High Court
J.Dhananjayan vs The District Collector on 6 September, 2021
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.16609 of 2016
J.Dhananjayan .. Petitioner
(in both cases)
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ranipet,
Vellore District.
3.The Thasildhar,
Walaja,
Walaja taluk,
Vellore District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Pulivalam Village,
Walaja taluk,
Vellore District.
5.Lakshmi
6.Malathi
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
7.Minor. Yamuna
8.Minor. Hari .. Respondents
(in both cases)
(Minor respondents 7 & 8 are represented by
their Mother, Malathi, 6th respondent herein)
Common Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated
29.03.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.309 & 310 of 2015 in O.S.No.266 of 2007 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.
In both the cases:
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Gouthaman
For RR 1 to 4 : Mrs.Dr.S.Suriya
Government of Counsel (C.S.)
For R5 : No appearance
For RR 6 to 8 : Mr.K.Pattabhi
COMMON ORDER
(These matters are heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal
orders dated 29.03.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.309 & 310 of 2015 in O.S.No.266
of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
2.The issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and
the same and hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this
common order.
3.The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.266 of 2007 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Sholinghur. Originally the petitioner filed suit against
the respondents 1 to 4 for mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 to
4 to grant patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. The
respondents 1 to 4, 5 and 6 to 8 filed separate written statements and are
contesting the suit. Pending suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.357 of 2013 for
amendment of the plaint to include the prayer to declare the registered sale
deed dated 10.05.2006 executed by the 5th respondent / 5th defendant in
favour of one Balaji as null and void. The said I.A. was allowed. Trial
commenced and after completion of evidence on both sides, the suit was
posted for arguments. At that time, the petitioner filed two applications in
I.A.Nos.309 & 310 of 2015 to re-open the case and to amend the plaint to
include the relief of declaration declaring the sale deed dated 13.08.1998
executed in favour of the 5th respondent as null and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
4.According to the petitioner, he came to know that the persons who
sold the suit property by the sale deed dated 02.10.1955 to the Grand Father
of the petitioner viz., Govinda Reddy, sold the suit property to the 5 th
respondent by the sale deed dated 13.08.1998. Hence, the relief of declaration
that sale deed dated 13.08.1998 executed in favour of the 5th respondent as
null and void is necessary and prayed for re-opening of the case. The
petitioner further stated that the petitioner's Grand Father Govinda Reddy was
in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the year 1955 and
hence, the plaint has to be amended.
5.The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the
averments and stated that the written statement has been filed by the 5th
respondent on 19.08.2008 itself and it has been mentioned that 5th respondent
purchased the suit property by sale deed dated 13.08.1998. Again the 6th
respondent in the written statement filed by her, reiterated the said averments.
In spite of the same, the petitioner did not deliberately take any steps to
amend the prayer. The petitioner did not explain as to why he has not filed
the applications before the commencement of Trial. As per the law, no
amendment can be allowed after commencement of Trial unless the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not seek
amendment before commencement of Trial and prayed for dismissal of both
I.As.
6.The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit, counter
affidavit and written statements and judgments relied on by the respondents,
dismissed the I.A.No.310 of 2015 filed to amend the plaint and in view of the
same, I.A.No.309 of 2015 for re-opening the case was also dismissed.
7.Against the said orders of dismissal dated 29.03.2016 passed in
I.A.Nos.309 & 310 of 2015, the petitioner has come out with the present two
Civil Revision Petitions.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the
learned Judge failed to see that amendment can be carried out at any stage of
the suit in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. The
learned Judge failed to see that suit property originally belonged to one
Kollapuri and Appadurai as their ancestral property and they were in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner's Grand Father
viz., Govinda Reddy purchased the suit property by the sale deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
02.10.1955 from the original owners viz., Kollapuri and Appadurai and he
was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date
of his purchase. By oversight, without having any right, title and patta to the
suit property, the 5th respondent sold the property to one Balaji on
10.05.2006. The learned Judge failed to note that already I.A.No.357 of 2013
filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint to declare that sale deed
dated 10.05.2006 executed by 5th respondent in favour of one Bajaji as null
and void was ordered and amendment was carried out. The present
amendment sought for is only consequential to the said amendment. The
petitioner's previous counsel by oversight, included only the prayer for
declaration declaring the sale deed executed by the 5th respondent in favour of
one Balaji as null and void inspite of asking to include the prayer for
declaration that sale deed executed in favour of 5th defendant dated
13.08.1998 as null and void. The present amendment is not barred by law of
Limitation and the present amendment is sought only to safeguard the interest
of parties. If the present amendment is allowed, it will decide the real dispute
in controversy of the suit and it will avoid multiplicity of the parties of the
suit with regard to same issue and prayed for allowing both the Civil
Revision Petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
9.The learned Government of Counsel (C.S.) appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 6 to 8 contended that the learned Judge has considered all the
materials placed before him in proper perspective and exercising his
jurisdiction conferred on him, has dismissed both the I.As by giving cogent
and valid reason. There is no error in the said order of the learned Judge
warranting interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of both the
Civil Revision Petitions.
10.Though notice has been served on the 5th respondent and her name
is printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of her, either in
person or through counsel.
11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the
learned Government of Counsel (C.S.) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 8 and perused the
entire materials on record.
12.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner filed suit
for mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to issue patta in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. Subsequently, he filed
I.A.No.357 of 2013 to amend the plaint to include the relief of declaration to
declare the sale deed dated 10.05.2006 executed by 5th respondent in favour
of one Balaji as null and void. The said I.A. was allowed. Trial commenced
and after closing of evidence by both the parties, suit was posted for
arguments. According to 6th respondent, the petitioner took 4 or 5
adjournments to argue the matter and filed the present two applications only
to drag on the proceedings. From the materials on record it is seen that the 5 th
respondent in the written statement filed on 19.08.2008 itself has stated about
her purchase by sale deed dated 13.08.1998. The said averment was reiterated
by the 6th respondent in the written statement filed by her. This shows that the
petitioner was aware of the purchase of the suit property by 5th respondent in
the year 2008 itself. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has not taken any steps
to include the relief now sought for in the present petition. Further, in the year
2013 he filed I.A.No.357 of 2013 to include the prayer for declaration to
declare the sale deed dated 10.05.2006 executed by 5th respondent in favour
of one Balaji as null and void. The said I.A. was allowed and amendment was
carried out. Even at that time also the petitioner has not sought for the relief
now sought for in the present petition. As per the Amendment Act 2002, as
per the proviso in Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., no award to the plaint can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
ordered after commencement of Trial, unless the party proves that inspite of
due diligence he could not seek amendment before commencement of Trial.
In the present case, except stating that he came to know about the execution
of the sale deed dated 13.08.1998, the petitioner has not given any reason that
inspite of due diligence, he could not seek the amendment before
commencement of Trial. The learned Judge considered Order VI Rule 17,
affidavit, counter affidavit, written statement of 5th respondent and judgment
relied on by counsel for respondents, dismissed the I.A.No.310 of 2015 filed
for amendment by giving cogent and valid reason. In view of the dismissal of
I.A. for amendment, the learned Judge also dismissed the I.A.No.309 of 2015
filed to re-open the case. There is no error or irregularity in the orders of the
learned Judge warranting interference by this Court.
13.In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
06.09.2021
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ranipet,
Vellore District.
3.The Thasildhar,
Walaja,
Walaja taluk,
Vellore District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Pulivalam Village,
Walaja taluk,
Vellore District.
5.District Munsif,
Sholinghur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2016
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
