Madras High Court
Anunciya vs Charles Arokyasamy on 17 April, 2025
C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 and
C.M.P. No.18140 of 2022
Anunciya ... Petitioner
Vs
Charles Arokyasamy ... Respondent
****
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
to set aside the fair and decretal order of Additional District Munsif Court at
Jayankondam dated 02.09.2022 made in I.A. No.01 of 2019 in O.S. No.82 of
2015.
****
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan,
Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr.K.M.Haresh
for M/s.P.V.Law Associates
For Respondent : Mr.K.P.P.Raja Raja Chozhan
________
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 04:34:56 pm )
C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022
ORDER
This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional
District Munsif, Jayankondam dated 02.09.2022 made in I.A. No.01 of 2019 in
O.S. No.82 of 2015. The revision petitioner herein is the the plaintiff in the above
suit.
2. Mr.P.Valliappan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner would contend that the suit was filed in O.S. No.82 of 2015 against the
respondent herein, who is the defendant in the said suit. The suit was filed for
permanent injunction.
3. The main contention of the learned senior counsel is that the subject
matter of the suit devolves around the settlement deed, which was executed by
Periyanayagam, who is the father of the plaintiff and the defendant dated
18.07.2014. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of this court with
reference to the schedule, where the schedule is extracted hereunder:
"mhpaY}h; hp/o Mz;oklk; rg;hp tujuh$d;
ngl;il fpuhkj;jpy; khjh nfhtpy; bjUtpy;
ej;jk; rh;nt 81-2 V?3?75-y; nuhl;Lf;F (bjw;F)
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 04:34:56 pm )
rhh;y!; kw;Wk; fz;zd; kidf;F (fpHf;F)
me;mjhzp rhkp kizf;Fk; (tlf;F)
gpynte;jpud; kidf;F (nkw;F) ,jpy; fpH 31/08
bjd; tly; 184 5718/72 rJuoa[s;s fhyp
kiza[lDk; ,jpy; cs;s giHa tPLk; 19/12/13
njjpapy; nfhh;l; Kj;jpiua[k; vd; ifbaGj;J
nghl;Lf; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ/"
Whereas in the prayer, the suit schedule property was mentioned as Survey
No.283/21 (Old Survey No.81/3Part).
4. The learned senior counsel further contended that there is a discrepancy
with regard to survey number mentioned in the settlement deed as well as in the
prayer and had filed an amendment petition, which was numbered as I.A. No.1 of
2019 and the trial court, had dismissed the same taking into consideration that the
application was filed 7 years belatedly, that too after a finding was given by the
Advocate-Commissioner and that it is an after-thought to correct the mistake crept
in at the time of filing the suit.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 04:34:56 pm )
5. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to avoid multiplicity of
suits, an amendment petition shall be allowed.
6. He has also relied on a judgment of this court in Muthusamy v.
Loganathan reported in 2021(4) CTC 699, wherein this court held as follows:
"19. The plaintiff had pleaded and disclosed the
settlement deeds, which he seeks to be declared as null and
void in the plaint. The amendment relates back to that
pleading. If the plaintiff had suppressed the said documents,
and had sought partition, then, he can never introduce any
prayer with respect to the said documents. However, he had
disclosed the documents. The plaintiff will have to be given an
opportunity to explain what exactly he meant by 'inadvertence'
which he had advanced as the reason for not seeking the reliefs
in the plaint in the first instance. Any explanation given will
have to withstand cross-examination. The issue of limitation,
therefore, becomes an intricate question of fact, which will
have to be resolved first, and resolution can be done only
through analysis of evidence which is adduced on this aspect."
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 04:34:56 pm )
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant
would contend that the discrepancy raised by the revision petitioner was with
regard to S.No.81/3. A rectification was made in the deed on 01.09.2014 where
the survey number reflects as 81/2 Acres 3.75. The learned counsel further
contended that, as the rectification deed has corrected the correct schedule of
property, the application made by the plaintiff is only to overcome the
fundamental mistake which has crept in at the time of filing the suit and by filing
such an application, the revision petitioner is attempting to grab the entire suit
schedule property, which was originally claimed in the suit.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record in the
form of typed set of papers.
9. Admittedly, in a case of limitation, as contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, which the learned senior counsel also vehemently
consented that the question of limitation is a mixture of fact and law and when an
amendment petition was filed, which was not reflected in the counter filed by the
respondent before the trial court in the interlocutory application, it has to be
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 04:34:56 pm )
decided by the trial court by adducing oral and documentary evidence, such an
exercise cannot be denied.
10. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the trial court dated
02.09.2022 made in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.82 of 2015 is hereby set aside.
As the suit is of the year 2015, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial
within a period of one year from the date on which the amendment petition filed
by the revision petitioner is allowed. The respondent is at liberty to make
necessary application to defend his case through document and by filing additional
written statement, if any.
11. In the above terms, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Asr
To
Additional District Munsif Court at Jayankondam
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 04:34:56 pm )
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Asr
C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 and
17.04.2025
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 04:34:56 pm )
