In a civil revision petition filed under Article 227, the High Court of Madras examined an order dismissing an application to amend a written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The court found no illegality or irregularity warranting interference and dismissed the revision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs. 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: 29.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.1021 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Maruthai ..Petitioner
Vs.
Marimuthu Udaiyar .. Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 03.04.2014 made in I.A.No.279 of 2013 in O.S.No.135 of 2010 on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ilamurugu
For Respondent : Mr.K.Nagendra Prasad for Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal
order dated 03.04.2014 made in I.A.No.279 of 2013 in O.S.No.135 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Perambalur.
2
3
before commencement of trial. After commencement of trial, an amendment can be ordered only when the petitioner alleges and proves that in spite of due diligence, he could not file the application for amendment before commencement of trial. The petitioner in his proof affidavit also mentioned the date of settlement deed as 16.12.2010 and not as 20.11.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner cross-examined the witnesses of the
respondent with regard to the settlement deed mentioning the date
as 16.12.2010.
he could not have filed the application earlier and further, the petitioner has not filed the settlement deed, dismissed the application.
4
respondent and perused the materials available on record.
date of settlement deed due to the typographical error has been wrongly typed as 16.12.2010 instead of 20.11.2009. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner has not stated as to why he did not file the application before commencement of trial and he has also not stated as to when he found the typographical error. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner cross-examined the witnesses of the respondent with regard to the settlement deed relied on by the counsel to substantiate his case. The respondent has filed suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 30.03.2009. In the suit for specific performance, the issue to be decided is whether the agreement of sale is valid or not and whether the plaintiff is
ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of specific performance. Further, the agreement of sale is dated 30.03.2009. Now the
petitioner is seeking to amend the date of settlement deed as 20.11.2009 instead of 16.12.2010. The settlement deed, even if it
5
is dated 20.11.2009, is subsequent to the agreement of sale mentioned in the plaint.
the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reason. There is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with
the order of the learned Judge dated 03.04.2014.
6
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
kj
C.R.P.(PD)No.1021 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
29.01.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the learned Judge under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. dismissing the amendment application.
Whether the failure by the petitioner to file the application before the commencement of the trial warrants interference under Article 227.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Maruthai
Marimuthu Udaiyar
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
