The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of an application to amend a plaint. The court held the amendment petition lacked necessary particulars and attempted to introduce evidence, finding no merit in the revision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
C.R.P (PD) No.1106 of 2016 &
C.M.P.No.6080 of 2016
Coumar
... Petitioner
vs.
1.Subramanian 2.Mangaiyarkarasi
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 24.08.2015 made in I.A.No.658 of 2015 in O.S.No.95 of 2013 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.95 of 2013 pending on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry is the petitioner in the present revision. The suit came to be filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
2
19.06.1997, the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.390 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry in the appeal arising therefrom, namely A.S.No.4 of 2011 and a subsequent notice issued by him to the defendants. After the filing of the written statement and when the case was pending for trial, the petitioner/plaintiff chose to file I.A.No.658 of 2015 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment is sought to be made in the guise of supplying certain omissions made while preparing the plaint. The omission, according to the petitioner, is the failure to refer to yet another suit, namely O.S.No.564 of 2002. The affidavit does not contain the particulars as to in which Court the said suit was filed and disposed of. A bald averment has been made in the supporting affidavit that the amendment has been sought for to furnish additional particulars, namely the Court records pertaining to the respondents herein in O.S.No.564 of 2002. What additional particulars pertaining to the respondents in the revision petition are sought to be pleaded in the additional plea has not been made known.
3
Details of Proposed Amendments
additional documents from Document No.14 to Document No.24”
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
4
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.04.2016
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gpa To III Additional District Judge Puducherry
5
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J.,
gpa
C.R.P (PD) No.1106 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.6080 of 2016
06.04.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing an application for amendment of plaint for lacking material particulars and attempting to include evidence.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of the amendment application has merit or deserves admission.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Coumar
Subramanian
Mangaiyarkarasi
P.R. Shiva Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
