Dismissed

Solaiammal v. Saminathan

Madras HC21 Jan 2015CRP(MD)/77/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by plaintiffs challenging the order of the District Munsif Court refusing to amend the plaint. The High Court upheld the trial court view that amendment of the plaint schedule was deprecable after the trial was completed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition and connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed. No costs.

Solaiammal Vs Saminathan — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.01.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.77 of 2015

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

1.Solaiammal

2.Muthuramalingam

3.Krishnan

4.Pasupathi

5.Muniammal : Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

Vs.

1.Saminathan

2.Malaichamy

3.Manickam

4.Boominathan : Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶19

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 13.11.2014 in I.A.No.100 of 2014 in O.S.No.106 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mudhukulathur.

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Anandakumar

ORDER

The plaintiffs have filed the above revision challenging the order refusing to amend the plaint.

¶25

The trial was completed and the suit was posted on 06.01.2012 for judgment. At that stage, the trial Court had suomotu re-opened the case and framed additional issues and that the parties adduced evidence on the same. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiffs have filed the above application to amend the plaint by supplementing the suit schedule property details. The defendant had opposed the same contending that it is the Court which had re-opened the matter suo-motu, which cannot be taken advantage by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint. It is open to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the parties only to adduce evidence by examining them. However, the plaint schedule property cannot be amended.

¶26

¶27

The trial Court after hearing the parties, had dismissed the application holding that it was for the sake of convenience of the Court, which had wanted some clarification, the suit was re-opened. In that process of clarification, it was open to the parties to adduce evidence orally. The process of clarifying the doubt that had arisen in the mind of the Court cannot be taken advantage of by the plaintiffs to file a petition for amending the plaint when amendment of plaint is deprecated even after the commencement of trial. In this case trial was completed and case was posted for judgment. It is for certain clarification, the Court had re-opened the case. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek amendment of plaint and the Court had rightly dismissed the application.

¶28

Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

The District Munsif , Mudhukulathur.

¶33

+One cc to Mr.N.Anandakumar , Advocate, SR.No.2695 pm RL/3 c- 14/2/2015

¶34

Order made in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.77 of 2015

¶35

21.01.2015

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Solaiammal v. Saminathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solaiammal v. Saminathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendran, Vs R.Mani

P.M.Abdul Azeez Vs Dr.K.H.Salim

Dr.(Mrs).Vasantha Elango Vs Dr.(Mr.)Vijayakumar Chellaiah

R.Gopinathan, Vs G.a.Hema

V.Paramadas Vs Krishnavaka Educational Trust

I.Palanichamy, Vs Uthirappa Naicker