Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Kannan Vs M. Murugesan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

Home
Madras HC
2016
Kannan Vs M. MurugesanKannan v. M. Murugesan

Dismissed

Kannan v. M. Murugesan

Madras HC27 Jun 2016CRP/1752/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A 3-judge bench disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging the allowance of an amendment to a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1752 of 2016 &

C.M.P.No.9286 of 2016

1.Kannan

2.Venkatesan

3.Suresh

4.Radha Krishnan ... Petitioners

vs

M.Murugesan

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the learned District Munsiff erred in allowing the amendment of plaint at the pre-trial stage.
2.
Whether the prayer for mandatory injunction regarding demolition of wall was barred by limitation.
3.
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the order allowing pre-trial amendment.

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Kannan
petitioner
Venkatesan
petitioner
Suresh
petitioner
Radha Krishnan
respondent
M.Murugesan

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 27 Jun 2016 · June
Registered: 14 Jun 2016
Case no.: CRP/1752/2016

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C. T. Selvam

S. Muthusarala Vs S. Solomon Raja
24 Jun 2016
A.Victoriya, Vs Tamil Selvan
24 Jun 2016
S.Vijayakumari Vs N.Bagaiyalakshmi
24 Jun 2016
Selvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police
27 Jun 2016
L. Babu Vs Shyla Jayaram

Cite this judgement

Kannan v. M. Murugesan, CRP/1752/2016 (MAD), decided on 27 June 2016.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

C.T.Selvam

Parties & counsel

Outcome

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned District Munsiff erred in allowing the amendment of plaint at the pre-trial stage. +2 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court held that pre-trial amendments enabling decision on all disputes generally ought to be allowed. Since the impugned order allowing amendment and directing costs was proper, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without interference.

A compact analysis

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.

... Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.979/2014 in O.S.No.263 of 2011

dated 12.01.2016 on the file of learned District Munsiff, Sankari.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jagadeesan

O R D E R

This revision arises against the order of challenges the order of learned

District Munsiff, Sankari, passed in I.A.No.979/2014 in O.S.No.263 of 2011 dated 12.01.2016.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

2

O.S.No.263 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari is the

suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:

a) a decree declaring the plaintiff's right of easement to light, air and access to the plaintiff's terrace house in the 1^st item of the suit property through the 2^nd item of the suit property lane by way of easement by prescription and thereby interdicting and restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents by means of a decree of permanent injunction from in any way putting up construction over the 2^nd item of the suit property obstructing or preventing the easementary right of light, air and access to the western wall of the suit property and in particular from putting up construction adjoining the western wall of the plaintiff's terrace house in the 1^st item of the suit property

b) award costs of the suit and

c) grant such other and further relief or reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. “

Petitioners/defendants and the respondent/plaintiff are adjacent

house owners. An advocate commissioner was appointed and his report

informed that some windows of the plaintiff's house could not be opened owing

to the adjacent construction of the petitioners/defendants. Though the advocate commissioner report was of the date 18.01.2012, the plaintiff moved a petition seeking amendment of the plaint towards including the prayer for mandatory injunction towards dismantling the offending wall. The respondent/plaintiff has alleged that the offending wall was put up during the

second week of December 2011. The Court below having allowed the prayer for

3

amendment, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court by way of this revision.

We note that the amendment has been allowed at pre-trial stage. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the offending wall was put up only in December 2011 whereas, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the same was put up much earlier and the prayer for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation. The question of limitation generally being a mixed question of law and fact, it is for the rival parties to establish their respective cases in so far as the age of the wall is concerned. For the rest, pre-trial amendments as would enable decision on all disputes between parties generally ought to be allowed. We note that the Court below in allowing the application also directed payment of costs in a sum of Rs.1000/-.

In the circumstances, the order of the Court below is a proper one

and this Court would not interfere. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.06.2016

Index:yes/no Internet:yes

4

C.T.SELVAM, J

kpr

To

The District Munsiff, Sankari.

Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1752 of 2016

27.06.2016

Coram

AI extract

C.T.Selvam

CNR

HCMA010887432016

Topic

Contract and Commercial Disputes

Bench

Disposal

DISMISSED

27 Jun 2016

Mr.G.Mani Vs Mrs.Soundari

27 Jun 2016