Dismissed

Ayyamperumal v. Assistant Commissiner

Madras HC20 Nov 2017CRP/4201/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court examined an order disallowing an application to amend a plaint to add a prayer for declaration. The revision was dismissed as the petitioner cited no valid reason for the nine-year delay.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Ayyamperumal Vs Assistant Commissiner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.11.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.4201 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.19706 of 2017
Ayyamperumal ... Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs
1 The Assistant Commissioner
HR & CE,
Coimbatore.
2 Thakkar/Executive Officer,
Arulmighu Varadha Perumal Temple,
Jotham Patti Village,
Madathukulam Taluk,
Udumalpet. ... Respondents/Defendants

¶7

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 29.08.2017 made in I.A.No.268 of 2017 in O.S.No.474 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Udumalpet. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunalan

¶8

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

According to the petitioner, the petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.474 of 2008 before the Principal District Munsif, Udumalpet for permanent injunction. The petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No. 268 of 2017 to add prayer for declaration by way of amendment. According to the petitioner, after filing written statement only, petitioner came to know that by oversight declaration prayer has not been included in the plaint. Hence, he filed the present application for amendment. If the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶13

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and perused the materials on record.

¶14

3 It is clear from the order passed by the court below, that the petitioner has filed the suit in the year 2008, the respondent herein has filed written statement in the year 2009. In the written statement, the respondent/ defendant disputed the title of the petitioner. Now, the contention of the

¶15

petitioner, by oversight the prayer for declaration, has not been included in the plaint and he came to know the same only after filing written statement and therefore, he filed the present application cannot be accepted since the

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

petitioner has not stated any reason for filing the application belatedly that too nearly after 9 years. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with

¶19

the order passed by the court below and thus, this Court does not warrant to

¶20

interfere with the order passed by the Court below.

¶21

4 Accordingly, the Civil revision petition fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
20.11.2017
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vaan
To
The Principal District Munsif, Udumalpet

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.

¶25

vaan

¶26

C.R.P.(PD) No.4201 of 2017

¶27

Dated: 20.11.2017

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

Ayyamperumal v. Assistant Commissiner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyamperumal v. Assistant Commissiner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvaraj Vs Sampooranam

Eric Andre Vs Alliance Francaise De

Rama Vasudeven Vs Senthil Kumar

Govindan Vs Nagarajan

S. Vinayagamurthy Vs Narayanasamy

Aboorvam Balasubramaniam Vs K.Balasubramaniam