Madras High Court
Selvam vs Periyannan on 23 January, 2025
C.R.P.No.5334 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.5334 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.29618 of 2024
1.Selvam
2.Selvi .. Petitioners
vs
1.Periyannan
2.Govindasamy
3.Athi
4.Periyakuzhandai
5.Kasi
6.Sekar
7.Malar
8.Amutha
Munusamy (died)
9.Visalakshi
10.Shanthi .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the decree and order passed by the Additional Subordinate
Court, Vellore dated 03.10.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.120
of 2010.
For Petitioners : Mr.Thennarasu
for Mr.Y.Kaja Nivas
For Respondents : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.R.P.No.5334 of 2024
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the
learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Vellore in I.A.No.3 of 2024
in O.S.No.120 of 2010.
2. O.S.No.120 of 2010 is a suit for partition and separate
possession. It is not necessary to go into the details of the plaint
and written statement for the purpose of disposal of this revision.
Suffice it to state that the defendants had filed the written
statement, issues have been framed, evidence has been recorded
and the matter was listed for arguments.
3. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application in
I.A.No.3 of 2024 seeking amendment of the plaint. According to the
plaintiffs, the extent of the property that had been given in the
schedule to the plaint suffers from a typographical error and
similarly, the addresses of the legal representatives have also been
erroneously stated. Hence, they have filed an application to correct
these errors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned Trial Judge issued notice in the application and
a counter was filed by the second respondent. The second
respondent pleaded that the application for amendment had been
presented only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings. He
pointed out that earlier an application had been filed by the plaintiffs
and had left the matter without any progress at that stage.
5. Considering the affidavit and counter, the learned Trial
Judge came to a conclusion that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code
of Civil Procedure acts as a bar for the plaintiffs to seek
amendment and hence dismissed the application. Hence, the
revision.
6. When the matter came up for admission, I requested
Mr.Y.Kaja Nivas to serve papers on Mr.J.Sridharan and
Ms.L.Gayathri, the learned counsels who represented the
respondents in the Court below. Service has been completed and
none has entered appearance for the respondents. Hence, I took up
the revision for final disposal.
7. I heard Mr.Thennarasu for Mr.Y.Kaja Nivas.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Referring to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, Mr.Thennarasu pleads
that for the purpose of determining the real controversy between
the parties, the amendment application has become essential. He
states that even post amendment, the plaint continues to be one for
partition and, therefore, the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing
the application. He points out neither cause of action nor the frame
of the suit has changed and hence seeks for revision of the order.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions of
Mr.Thennarasu.
10. The suit is for partition. The plaint, even if the
amendment is granted, continues to be one for partition. In fact as
rightly contended by Mr.Thennarasu, if the amendment is ordered,
the extent for which partition is sought for is not being enlarged but
is being reduced. Therefore, no prejudice would have been caused
to the defendants if the amendment had been ordered. Similarly, if
the correct addresses of the parties are brought on record, then it
would assist the Court at the time of drafting the decree.
11. The purpose of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was not
to bar amendments in the nature of typographical errors. It was to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prevent the proceedings from being unnecessarily dragged on by
filing one application after another and to ensure that parties
proceed with suits with earnest.
12. I have gone through the amendments sought for. I am
satisfied that it neither changes the frame of the suit nor the cause
of action. For the mere fact that it is post trial amendment, it does
not mean it deserves dismissal. At the same time, the interest of
the second respondent has to be taken into consideration.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the civil revision
petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The order passed by the learned
Additional Subordinate Court, Vellore in
I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.120 of 2013 dated
03.10.2024 is set aside on condition that the
petitioners pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the
contesting second respondent within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order;
(ii) Since the plaintiffs did not seek any
amendment in the pleading portion but only in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the schedule, by virtue of this order, the
plaintiffs will not be entitled to reopen the
evidence;
(iii) The Court shall receive the amended
plaint copy and additional written statement
from the second respondent, if any, confine to
the amendments which have been granted and
thereafter proceed and pronounce the
judgment in the suit; and
(iv) In case, the costs of Rs.7500/- is not
paid within the time fixed by this court, the civil
revision petition will stand dismissed without
further reference to this Court.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.01.2025
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mmi
To
The Additional Subordinate Court,
Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
mmi
23.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
