Petitioner sought to set aside a dismissal of an amendment application. The court dismissed the petition without deciding the merits, granting liberty to file a fresh application to amend the prayer in the plaint at the trial court.
Petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court to amend the prayer in the plaint.
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: 27.11.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP (PD) No. 329 of 2016
and
C.M.P. No.1302 of 2016
C. Ranganathan .. Petitioner
Vs
1. N. Duraisamy
2. Rajendran .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 01.07.2015 made in I.A. No. 301 of 2009 in O.S. No. 157 of 2008 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge (FAC), Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner : Mr. Mukund R. Pandiyan For Respondents : Mr. R. Natarajan for Mr. M. Arunkumar O R D E R
This revision arises against the order dated 01.07.2015 made
in I.A. No. 301 of 2009 in O.S. No. 157 of 2008 on the file of Additional
Subordinate Judge (FAC), Tiruvannamalai.
2
2008 for declaration and permanent injunction. The present amendment application has been filed before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. In
the aforesaid Amendment Application, the petitioner seeks to amend the suit schedule in the petition, stating that there are some clerical and typographical error in the description of the property mentioned in the suit. According to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the said application is allowed. But, the court below,
without considering the grounds raised in the Amendment application,
has erroneously dismissed the said application.
in so far as the first amendment is concerned, the petitioner is not
pressing for amending the entire boundaries of the suit property. The
only amendment sought for in the present revision petition is to delete
the words, “ south of plot No.22 purchased by Rajendra Prasad” and add “south of” on the southern side boundary of the suit schedule property.
Even in the present application, the prayer is not clear. At this stage,
3
the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present
revision petition, granting liberty to file a fresh application before the court below, only for amendment of the prayer in the plaint.
appropriate application has been filed for amending the description of the property. With regard to withdrawal of the present petition, the
same would not prejudice the right of the respondents, to agitate before the trial court.
counsel for both the parties, nothing survives in the present petition and
hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh application before the trial court and the same
shall consider in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order as to costs.
27.11.2017
Index : Yes/ No
Speaking order/ Non speaking order
4
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,
avr
To
The Additional Subordinate Judge (FAC),
Tiruvannamalai
CRP (PD) No. 329 of 2016
and
C.M.P. No.1302 of 2016
27.11.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's dismissal of an amendment application to correct clerical errors in the suit schedule without considering grounds was erroneous.
Whether the petitioner's request to withdraw the revision and file a fresh application for amendment of the prayer in the plaint should be permitted.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C. Ranganathan
N. Duraisamy
Rajendran
D. Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
