Madras High Court
S.Revathi vs N.Petchiammal on 26 April, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
S.Revathi .. Petitioner
Versus
1.N.Petchiammal
2.Sankaran
3.N.Maragatha Murugan
4.Alagu Sundari @ Sundari
5.Chidhambaram
6.Sankara Vadivoo
7.Alwar Ganesh
8.Sankran Pillai .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the
order dated 17.11.2021, in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in O.S.No.237 of 2015, on the file of the
Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.11.2021, passed in
I.A.No.3 of 2020 filed by her to amend the plaint in O.S.No.237 of 2015, on the file
of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
2.By the impugned order dated 17.11.2021, the Trial Court has rejected the
application filed by the petitioner. The operative portion of the impugned order
reads as under:-
''8.tof;F rq;fjpfis ghHitapLk; nghOJ thjpapd; je;ijahd
eluh[gps;isf;Fk; mtUila 2tJ kidtpahd 1k; gpujpthjpf;Fk;
gpwe;j %j;j kfd; 3k; gpujpthjp vd;W tof;fpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ.
jw;NghJ 3k; gpujpthjp NtW xU egUf;F gpwe;j egH vdTk;> 3k;
gpujpthjpapd; jahH 1k; gpujpthjp tpjitahf eluh[gps;isapd;
tPl;bw;F Ntiyf;F te;j NghJ mtiu eluh[gps;is jd; Kjy;
kidtpapd; rk;kjj;Jld; 2tJ jpUkzk; nra;J nfhz;ljhfTk;>
mtHfSf;F 4 Kjy; 6 gpujpthjpfs; gpwe;jjhfTk; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ.
gpujpthjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s Kd; jPHg;Giuapy; tof;F
tprhuizf;F gpd;G gpuhij jpUj;jk; nra;a mDkjpf;ff;$lhJ vdTk;>
me;j jpUj;jy; tpguq;fs; gpuhJ jhf;fy; nra;Ak; NghNjh my;yJ
tof;F tprhuizf;F tUtjw;F Kd;Ngh jpUj;jy; tpguq;fs; thjpf;F
njhpatpy;iy vd;W NghJkhd fhuzk; njhptpj;jjhy; gpuhij jpUj;jk;
nra;a mDkjpf;fyhk; vd;W nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,e;j tof;fpy; 2015k;
tUlk; gpuhJ jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L 2016k; tUlk; vjpHtof;Fiu jhf;fy;
nra;J 2019k; tUlk; Kjy; tprhuiz thf;F%yk; gjpT nra;J
tprhuizf;fhf tha;jh Nghlg;gl;l epiyapy; tof;Fiuapy; 3k;
gpujpthjp ,we;J Nghd eluh[gps;isf;F gpwf;ftpy;iy vd;w tpguk;
49 taJ epuk;gpa thjpf;F 05.01.2020k; Njjp jhd; njhpa te;jJ vd;W
nrhy;tJ rl;lg;gbAk; epahag;gbAk; mDkjpf;fj; jf;fjy;y. mt;thW
jpUj;jy; Fwpj;J mDkjpj;jhy; 3k; gpujpthjpf;F <L nra;a
Kbahj ,og;gPL Vw;glj;jf;fjhFk;> 3k; gpujpthjp jug;gpy; jhd; 1k;
gpujpthjpf;Fk; eluh[gps;isf;Fk; gpwe;j thhpR vd;gjw;F mtUila
gs;sp khw;W rhd;wpjo;> thhpR rhd;wpjo;> jpUkz miog;Gfs;>
thf;fhsH milahs ml;il> MjhH milahs ml;il> flT+r;rPl;L>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
tUkhd ml;il> Xl;LdH chpkk; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ.
9.Nkw;fz;l fhuzq;fspd; mbg;gilapy; ghHitapLk; nghOJ
kDjhuH kDtpy; nrhy;ypAs;s tpgug;gb gpuhij jpUj;jk; nra;a
NfhUtJ Vw;fdNt gpuhjpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s rq;fjpfSf;F tpNuhjkhf
Kw;wpYk; Kuz;gl;L gpuhij jpUj;jk; nra;a NfhUtJ mry; tof;fpy;
rhl;rp tprhuizf;F Jtq;fpa gpd;G ,k;kDit mDkjpj;jhy; 3k;
gpujpthjpf;F <L nra;a Kbahj ,og;gPL Vw;gLk; vd;gjhy; ,k;kD
js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;ljhf ,e;j gpur;ridf;F jPHT fhzg;gLfpwJ.''
3.The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.237 of 2015 before the Principal Sub
Court, Tirunelveli. In the said suit, the petitioner wants the plaint to be amended,
whereby, she is questioning the paternity of the third respondent herein/third
defendant in the suit. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent is not
the son of her father Late.Natraja Pillai.
4.In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Niranjan
Kajaria vs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others reported in 2015 (10) SCC 203. A
specific reference is made to Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said judgment, which reads
as under:-
''23. We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas [(1974) 1 SCC
242] and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup [Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly,
(2008) 7 SCC 85] that a categorical admission made in the pleadings
cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. To that
extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as
held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava [Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyoti
Sahay, 1984 Supp SCC 594] , does not reflect the correct legal position and
it is overruled.
24. However, the admission can be clarified or explained by way of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
amendment and the basis of admission can be attacked in substantive
proceedings. In this context, we are also mindful of the averment in the
application for amendment that:
''11. … Mahabir Prasad Kajaria died at the age of 24
years on 7-5-1949 when Defendant 5 was only 2 years and
Defendant 12 was only 21 years. Till the death of Mahabir
and even thereafter, the petitioners had been getting benefits
from income of the joint properties. Defendant 5 and his two
sisters, namely, Kusum and Bina were brought up and were
maintained from the income of the joint family properties. The
petitioners after the death of Mahabir, they continued to live
in the joint family as members and till now as members of the
joint family. In the marriage of the two sisters of Defendant 5
Kusum and Bina (now after marriage Smt Kusum Tulsian and
Smt Bina Tulsian) the expenses were wholly borne out from
the incomes of the joint family properties. The said facts are
well known to all the family members and their relations.'' ''
5.A reading of the impugned order indicate that the documents, which have
been filed by the third respondent/third defendant to substantiate that he is indeed the
son of Late.Natraja Pillai. The application filed for amendment of the plaint has been
made after the commencement of the trial. As per Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., no
application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the
Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of trial. There are no basis to conclude
that such a plea could not be raised by the petitioner before the trial commenced in
the above suit.
6.In this case, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 after the evidence was
completed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
7.Considering the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
8.Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2015, the Trial Court is
directed to dispose the suit on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably, within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
NCC : Yes/No 26.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
smn2
To
The Principal Sub Judge,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.1138 of 2023
26.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
