Madras High Court
P.Jayaseelan vs K.Selvam on 19 July, 2023
CRP(PD)No.356 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.356 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.1589 of 2017
P.Jayaseelan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Selvam
2. K.Sundaram
3. M.Rajeswari
4. M.Saravanan
5. M.Kannan
6. P.Shanmugam ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
against the fair and decretal order dated 22.10.2016 in I.A.No.137 of 2016 in
O.S.No.179 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Salem.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Meenal
For R1 to R5 : Mr.S.Sivasankar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
CRP(PD)No.356 of 2017
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner and learned counsel
for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the records.
2. The revision arises against an order passed by the learned II Additional
District Judge, Salem, dated 22.10.2016 in I.A.No.137 of 2016 in O.S.No.179 of
2012.
3. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner. The defendants are the
respondents. O.S.No.179 of 2012 was filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of specific
performance of an agreement of sale. Pending the proceedings, the judgment of the
Supreme Court intervened, which had stated that a mere suit for specific performance
without seeking for declaration that the cancellation of the contract is null and void, is
not maintainable. Pursuant to the said judgment, the plaintiff filed an application in
I.A.No.137 of 2016 to amend the prayer seeking for declaration. The said application
was stiffly resisted by the defendants before the trial Court, as well as before me,
stating that such an amendment at the stage of argument is not maintainable.
4. By allowing the amendment, the nature of the suit and the cause of action is
not going to change. Apart from that, the defendants would also not be taken by
surprise. The defendants' cancellation of the contract is the subject matter of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)No.356 of 2017
declaration. Therefore that relief sought for by the plaintiff on the basis of the verdict
of the Supreme Court cannot be said to be bad.
5. Therefore, the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem,
dated 22.10.2016, in I.A.No.137 of 2016 in O.S.No.179 of 2012 is set aside. I make it
clear that the plaintiff and the defendants will not be entitled to let in any fresh
evidence in the suit. Parties shall proceed on the basis of the evidence already
recorded and the amendment is only with respect to the prayer. The defendants will be
entitled to file a written statement and can take all the defence including the defence of
limitation.
6. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
II Additional District Judge, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)No.356 of 2017
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.356 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.1589 of 2017
19.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
