Madras High Court
Rathidevi vs Palanisamy on 11 September, 2025
CRP.No.1019 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.1019 of 2024
Rathidevi ... Petitioner / Plaintiff
vs.
Palanisamy, (Died),
1.Hemalatha
2.Subulakshmi
3.Kathirasan
4.Vasanthi
5.Prabu
6.Kavitha
7.Duraisamy
8.Sangeetha
9.Selvatha
10.Lakshmi
11.Susila
12.Indhumathi
13.Palnisamy
14.Sivaranjini
15.Selvi
16.Valarmathi
17.Murthy .. Respondents / Defendants
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
CRP.No.1019 of 2024
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the order dated 27.11.2023 in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.275
of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram, dismissing the
amendment petition and to set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudhakar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan,
for Mr.N.Ponraj for R1, R2, R4 to R8,
R10 to R13 and R15 to R17
ORDER
The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this revision petition. The 1st
defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is the sister of the
plaintiff. The Suit is filed for the relief of Declaration and for Permanent
Injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, the plaintiff has filed an application
in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.275 of 2010 Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the
plaint.
2. The defendants have filed their objections and upon hearing either side,
the Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff
only seeks the relief of Declaration based on her family arrangements and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
taking into account that the trial has almost completed and if the amendment is
allowed, nature and character of the Suit will be altered and will introduce a new
cause of action. Aggrieved over the said order of dismissal, the plaintiff has filed
the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
Trial Court has failed to consider the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and also
failed to consider that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit
proceedings and after the death of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has taken the
amendment application to amend the pleadings and prayer portion. Unless such
amendment is permitted, multiplicity of the suit proceedings needs to be instituted
before the Court and to avoid the same, the plaintiff has chosen to file the
application for amendment. The Court below has failed to consider that the
original prayer sought for after the death of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff and the
2nd defendant are title holder of the suit properties. There is no prejudice caused to
the defendants by allowing the amendment application, as legal rights of the
plaintiffs cannot be curtailed to establish her case before the Court below. To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
strengthen his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India
v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors [AIR 2022 SC 4256] to show that
the prayer for amendment generally required to be allowed unless amendment
may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material
particulars in the plaint and the delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer and where the aspect of delay is arguable, the
prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed
separately for decision.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit
that Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion
that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial. To strengthen his contentions, the learned counsel has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavaraj v. Indira
and Others [2024 INSC 151] and yet another judgment in P.Mariappan v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
P.Mohankumar [2021 (5) CTC 727] to show that amendment changing the entire
character of the Suit cannot be permitted that too after a lapse of reasonable years
after the institution of the Suit.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials
available on record.
6. According to the plaintiff, the Suit properties are ancestral properties of
the plaintiff's father and subsequently as per the family arrangement between the
plaintiff, the 1st defendant Palanisamy and the 2nd defendant Hemalatha, their
father was given life estate of the suit properties. It is also stated that it was
agreed to enjoy the properties without creating any encumbrance over the suit
properties. The plaintiff's father/1st defendant Palanisamy died on 22.11.2013.
After his death, the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant
jointly. Therefore, the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant is having equal ½ share in
the suit properties. Hence, if the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, then the
plaintiff has to file a partition suit separately and the same will cause delay to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
proceedings and the plaintiff could not enjoy the properties and therefore, it is
just and necessary to amend the relief to the relief of partition of the suit
properties.
7. It is seen from the records that the 2 nd defendant filed her objection,
wherein it has been stated that originally the suit properties is the ancestral
property of the deceased / 1st defendant Palanisamy. On 12.03.2010, a registered
partition deed was entered between the 1st defendant / deceased Palanisamy,
plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. As per the partition deed, 1st item of 'A' Schedule
Property was allotted to the 1st respondent, life estate as to 2nd item of 'A'
Schedule Property was allotted to the 1st respondent, 3rd item of the 'A' Schedule
Property was allotted to the 2nd respondent The suit 'B' Schedule Property was
allotted to the plaintiff. 'C' Schedule Property was allotted to the 2nd defendant.
Accordingly, with regard to 'A' Schedule 1st item of the property, the 1st defendant
himself, during his lifetime, has sold the property to other persons and the
subsequent purchasers are in enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff also sold the
part of the 'B' Schedule Property allotted to her. This being the case, after the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
death of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff claims right over the suit property and
seeing amendment for the relief of partition, which is unsustainable in law.
8. It is also seen from the records that originally the Suit has been filed for
Declaration and for Permanent Injunction. It has been stated in the plaint that the
suit properties are ancestral properties of the deceased/1st defendant Palanisamy
and the suit properties are allotted to the said Palanisamy as per the family
arrangement. It is not in dispute that during the trial of the Suit, the 1 st defendant
died on 22.11.2013. The amendment application came to be filed in the year
2023 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
9. At this juncture it is refer Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which is extracted
hereunder:
“Rule 17.Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any
stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all
such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose
of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed
after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the
conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
As per the aforesaid provision, amendment can be allowed only in case of due
diligence the party could have raised the matter before the commencement of trial
and that if the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining
the real questions in controversy between the parties.
10. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition would reveal
that under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there is no acceptable reason stated as to why
the proposed amendment is not sought at the earliest point of time. It is also not
in dispute that almost the trial has been completed. If the proposed amendment is
allowed, the nature and character of the Suit will be altered and it also amounts to
introducing a new cause of action. The Court below, upon considering the
arguments advanced on either side, rightly came to the conclusion that the
amendment sought to be made in the plaint is not only belated, but also an
afterthought and it is not necessary to decide the real controversy between the
parties. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial has already
commenced and the revision petitioner /plaintiff has not stated any acceptable
reason as to why the proposed amendment was not filed at the earliest point of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
time. If the amendment sought for is allowed, it would cause serious prejudice to
the other side. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings arrived by
the Court below and finds no merit in this Civil Revision Petition.
11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, confirming
the order dated 27.11.2023 made in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.275 of 2010. No
costs.
11.09.2025
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
To
District Munsif Court,
Dharapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jvm
11.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/09/2025 03:28:16 pm )
