In a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing a plaint amendment regarding property schedule corrections in o.s.no.316 of 2011, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding the pre-trial amendment was not prejudicial and was made liberally by the trial court.
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: 23.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.3098 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Kandhasamy ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Venkatachalam
2.Subramaniam
3.Vadivel
4.Marimuthu
5.Suresh
6.Murugaiyan@Kannan
7.Gopinath
8.The District Collector
Collectorate, Salem.
9.The Tahsildhar
Mettur Taluk office
Mettur.
10.The Village Administrative Officer
Avadathur village
Mettur Taluk
Salem District. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated
2
04.02.2015 made in I.A.No.973 of 2014 in O.S.No.316 of 2011 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For R1 to R5 : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan For R6 to R9 : No appearance For R10 : Not ready in notice ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 04.02.2015 made in I.A.No.973 of 2014 in O.S.No.316
of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur.
the plaintiffs, respondents 6 to 10 are the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 in O.S.No.316 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettur. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 6, 7 and petitioner with regard to their possession and mandatory injunction directing the respondents 8 to 10 to sub-divide 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and to issue patta in the name of the respondents 1 to 5. The 6th respondent filed written
3
statement and the same is adopted by the 7th respondent and are contesting the suit. Before commencement of trial, the respondents 1 to 5 filed I.A.No.973 of 2014 for amendment of the plaint to delete item Nos.2 to 5 in A schedule property and to correct the
extent of the first item in the A schedule property as 2 acres 66 cents instead of 0.66 acres and description of the B schedule property with regard to the extent and boundaries.
averments made by the respondents 1 to 5 in the said application and contended that without knowing the properties, the respondents 1 to 5 have come out with the suit, which is not maintainable. The alleged mistake in the description of the property is not a typographical error. If amendment is allowed, it would change the entire character of the suit and introduce a new cause of action.
4
affidavit, counter affidavit and description of the property in the plaint, allowed the application holding that amendment sought for is pre-trial amendment and the petitioner and other defendants have a
right to file additional written statement.
Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/3rd defendant.
respondents 1 to 5 and perused the materials available on record.
and mandatory injunction. In order to decide the issue in the suit, the correct description of the property is necessary. In the present
case, the respondents 1 to 5 are seeking amendment in the schedule of property by deleting Item Nos.2 to 5 in 'A' schedule property and to correct extent of the first item in 'A' schedule property as 2 acres 66 cents instead of 0.66 acres. Similarly, the amendment sought for in respect of 'B' schedule property is with
5
regard to the extent and boundaries. The respondents 1 to 5 seek amendment with regard to property mentioned therein. The amendment sought for cannot be said to change the character of the suit or introducing new cause of action. The reason given by the respondents 1 to 5 that the mistakes had crept in due to typographical error is acceptable. It is well settled that pre-trial amendment must be considered liberally as no prejudice would be
caused to other party as they have a right to file additional written
statement.
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.01.2018
kj
6
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
kj
To
The District Munsif
Mettur.
C.R.P.(PD)No.3098 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
23.01.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's order allowing a pre-trial amendment of the plaint to correct typographical errors in property particulars.
Kandhasamy
Venkatachalam
Subramaniam
Vadivel
Marimuthu
Suresh
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
