In a civil revision petition, the High Court held that the trial Court did not err in allowing respondents to amend their plaint to include an additional property claiming 1/4th share, as the amendment did not change the suit's character and was justified under Order VI Rule 17 CPC proviso. The writ application was dismissed.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.
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: 06.06.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.1786 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.8365 of 2017
N.Palani
.. Petitioner
Vs.
19.S.J.Peter .. Respondents
2
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 16.12.2013 passed in I.A.No.470 of 2013 in O.S.No.63 of 2000, on the file of the Sub Court, Madurantagam.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal Order dated 16.12.2013 in I.A.No.470 of 2013 in O.S.No.63 of 2000, on the file of the Sub Court, Madurantagam.
3
about the said property recently and immediately, they filed a petition for amendment to include the said property also. The petitioner alone filed a counter affidavit and other respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. The petitioner opposed the said application and submitted that the claim of the respondents 1 and 2 to include the property is barred by limitation and the said application is belated one. After amendment of C.P.C., no amendment can be allowed, after commencement of trial.
4
5
VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 reads as follows:-
"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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
6
the character of the suit, allowed the application. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court, dated 16.12.2013, warranting interference by this Court.
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2017
Index : Yes/No
r n s
7
To
The Sub Court, Madurantagam.
8
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
r n s
C.R.P.(PD)No.1786 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.8365 of 2017
06.06.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in allowing amendment of plaint to include an additional property left out at the time of filing the suit under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the amendment introduced a barred claim or was hit by plea of ouster and adverse possession warranting interference under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
N.Palani
Kamala
Rukmani Ammal
Parthasarathy
Palani
Madurai
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
