Madras High Court
R.Kamalagirinathan vs Gnanapoonkodi on 13 June, 2023
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6108 of 2023
R.Indira (died)
1.R.Kamalagirinathan
2.Arunagirinathan
3.R.Gnanagirinathan
4.R.Buvanagirinathan
Latha Mangeswari (died)
5.Hinduja
6.Minor Leharisa
rep. by her next friend and legal guardian
4th petitioner R.Buvanagirinathan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Gnanapoonkodi
2.G.Sivakumar
3.Karhikai Deepa
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 9
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
4.R.Murugalakshmi
5.Megala
6.Mu.Nagu. Achiyariar Endowment by
its President P.Suresh Nagu,
16 Santhiamman Kovil Street,
Virudhunagar Town,
Virudhunagar Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
7.State through its District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Kumarasamy Raja Nagar,
Virudhunagar.
8.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Virudhunagar District.
9.The Village Administrative Officer,
Chinnamoppanpatti Village,
Virudhunagar Taluk.
10.The Special District Revenue Officer,
National Highways - 7,
(Widening of Four loan Scheme),
Velchamy Nagar, Virudhunagar.
11.Virudhunagar Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
National Highways - 7,
(Virudhunagar incharge Special Tahsildar (Land
Acquisition 23/3, Muslim North Street,
Aruppukottai).
12.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Aruppukottai District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 2 of 9
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
13.Project Director,
83-1, First Colony Expansion,
National Highways Board Bypass Road,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the order made in I.A.No.530 of 2018 in O.S.No.19
of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar dated
03.11.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ashok Kumar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the
impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the District Munsif Court,
Virudhunagar in I.A.No.530 of 2018 in O.S.No.19 of 2011.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the first defendant in
O.S.No.19 of 2011 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Virudhunagar. The said suit was filed by the first to fifth respondents
herein for declaratory relief and for injunction against the petitioners and
the sixth to thirteenth respondents.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
3. It appears that the above suit was originally dismissed, against
which, A.S.No.2 of 2016 was filed before the Sub Court, Virudhunagar.
The Sub Court, Virudhunagar has remanded back the case for fresh trial.
Before the trial could commence, the first to fifth respondents (plaintiffs)
filed I.A.No.530 of 2018 under Order VI Rules 17 & 18 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for amending the plaint which has been allowed by the
Court vide impugned order dated 03.11.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several
amendments have been sought for by the first to fifth respondents
(plaintiffs), which in turn are impeding on the substantial rights of the
petitioners and the petitioners are on the question of law. It is submitted
that the Court below has erred in allowing the I.A.No.530 of 2018 vide
impugned order dated 03.11.2022.
5. A reading of the impugned order indicates that the first to fifth
respondents (plaintiffs) filed an appeal against the earlier dismissal of suit
in O.S.No.19 of 2011 before the First Appellate Court namely, Sub Court,
Virudhunagar in A.S.No.2 of 2016. The Sub Court, Virudhunagar has set
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court in the earlier round
and has remitted the case back to the Trial Court with the following
observations:-
Trial Court ought to have granted
opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint for
including the relief of declaration regarding
judgment and decree in A.S.No.33/2008. The
dismissal of the suit declaiming to grant the relief
regarding the judgment and decree in O.S.No.
242/2007 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to
seek Declaration of title in respect of the
properties as well as Declaration in respect of the
Judgment and decree in A.S.No.33/2008 in the
proper so far doing complete justice to the parties
in the suit without going into the merits of the
case and without deciding any issue on merits, this
court is inclined to remand the suit to Trial for
fresh Trial.
........
The suit is remanded back to the Trial Court
for fresh Trial. The Trial Court shall grant
sufficient opportunities to the plaintiffs to seek
relief of Declaration of Title in respect of the Suit
properties and Declaration regarding the Judgment
and Decree in Appeal proceedings and grant
opportunities to the Defendants to file Additional
Written Statement and shall frame proper Issues
regarding the said reliefs and give opportunities to
both parties to adduce Additional evidence if any
on the additional issues and shall deliver the
judgment on merits at an earliest point of time.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in Amaravathi and others Vs.
Sankaranarayanan and others, 2018 (5) CTC 364. It is submitted that
in the above, under similar circumstances, the Court has laid down the
limitation by stating that the Appellate Court after remand shall not permit
amendment of pleadings or prayers under any circumstances.
7. The facts of the present case and the facts of the above case cited
by the learned counsel for petitioner are not identical. In the present case,
the Court has ordered fresh trial. Therefore, amendment sought for by the
first to fifth respondents (plaintiffs) which has been allowed by the
District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar vide impugned order dated
03.11.2022 is to be construed as pre-trial amendment.
8. Thus, there is no justification in interfering with the impugned
order passed by the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar by allowing the
pleadings to be amended in O.S.No.19 of 2011 although such amendment
has been sought for belatedly by the first to fifth respondents (plaintiffs)
by filing the above I.A. on 24.10.2018 & 14.11.2018. Therefore, the
impugned order does not call for interference.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
9. All the issues relating to the limitation are left open to the
petitioners to be canvassed before the Court. The petitioners shall
therefore file Additional Written Statement, if any, in the light of the
amendment that has been allowed, before the trial. The petitioners are
also at liberty to file application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint, in case it is the case of the
petitioners that the first to fifth respondents (plaintiffs) advised on the
ground that the issue which has been already settled in the earlier round of
litigation is being re-agitated.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
13.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/ No
jen
To
1.The District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
2.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Kumarasamy Raja Nagar,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Chinnamoppanpatti Village,
Virudhunagar Taluk.
5.The Special District Revenue Officer,
National Highways - 7,
(Widening of Four loan Scheme),
Velchamy Nagar, Virudhunagar.
6.Virudhunagar incharge Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
23/3, Muslim North Street,
Aruppukottai).
7.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Aruppukottai District.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jen
C.R.P.(MD) No.1251 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6108 of 2023
13.06.2023
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
