Madras High Court
N.Karthish vs Nil on 12 January, 2023
CRP(MD)No.2619 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.2619 of 2022
N.Karthish : Petitioner
Vs.
Nil : Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to direct the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, to number the
interlocutory application in SR.No.3056 of 2022 in unnumbered I.A.No. - of 2020
in S.O.P.No.7 of 2020 and to decide the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi
*****
ORDER
The petitioner has filed a petition in S.O.P.No.7 of 2020 before the Principal
District Court, Ramanathapuram, seeking succession certificate. The same was
decreed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, vide judgment
and decree dated 08.12.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2619 of 2022
application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to add his grandfather’s name in the
prayer of S.O.P.No.7 of 2020, stating that the same was erroneously left out. The
said interlocutory application was returned on 30.11.2022 questioning as to how
the petition is maintainable under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC when the main case itself
was disposed as early as on 08.12.2020. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner
has moved the instant revision petition.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed S.O.P.No.7
of 2020, based on a Will dated 26.01.1999 and the trial court has also ordered for
the succession certificate by judgment and decree dated 08.12.2020. Even though
he got a decree in his favour, he could not get the shares, without the name of the
grandfather in the decree dated 08.12.2020. Therefore, he filed the interlocutory
petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the grandfather’s name in the
main petition, however, the same was not entertained.
3.This Court considered the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2619 of 2022
4.It appears that the trial court, based on the Will dated 26.01.1999, has
already passed a decree granting succession certificate in S.O.P.No.7 of 2020. The
grievance of the petitioner is that he failed to include his grandfather's name in the
prayer in S.O.P.No.7 of 2020 and therefore, he filed the present interlocutory
application for amending the prayer. The trial Court returned this application
stating that the main original petition was already disposed of.
5.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Peethani Suryanarayana v. Repaka
Venkata Ramana Kishore, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 308, has held that the
amendment in plaint is permissible even after the passing of the final decree. The
relevant portion from the said decision is extracted as under:-
“10. The power of the court to allow such an application for
amendment of the plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a wide
power on the part of the court is circumscribed by two factors viz. (i) the
application must be bona fide; (ii) the same should not cause injustice
to the other side; and (iii) it should not affect the right already accrued
to the defendants.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2619 of 2022
6.In view of the above decision, this civil revision petition stands disposed
of, with a direction to the trial court to number the interlocutory application and to
decide the same, on its merits, by applying the ratio laid down in Peethani
Suryanarayana's case (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes / No 12.01.2023
Internet : Yes
gk
Note: Registry is to return the original plaint, after taking sufficient copies and
after getting due acknowledgments.
To
The Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(MD)No.2619 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
CRP(MD)No.2619 of 2022
12.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
