The High Court confirmed the trial court's dismissal of an application to amend a plaint in a partition suit filed late at the evidence conclusion stage, applying Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and the plea to amend the plaint was rejected.
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: 13.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP (PD) No. 430 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No.2280 of 2018
Manonmani alias
Mani Ammal .. Petitioner
Vs
Perumal .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair Order and Decreetal Order dated 05.12.2017 in I.A.No.595 of 2017 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Learned District Judge, District Court Hall No.II at Kancheepuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Chandrasudan
O R D E R
This Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the Fair
Order and Decreetal Order dated 05.12.2017 in I.A.No.595 of 2017 in
O.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Learned District Judge, District Court
Hall No.II at Kancheepuram.
2
partition and claiming ½ share in the suit property. The respondent filed his written statement and objected the averments made in the plaint on 10.03.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an Application in I.A. No.
595 of 2017 to amend the plaint in the aforesaid suit. The court below dismissed the aforesaid application. Against the same, the present
revision petition is filed.
partition and due to a mistake the amendment application was not filed
at an earlier stage. It is further pleaded that if the said application is not allowed, the petitioner would be put to great loss and hardship. Further, the petitioner has not raised any new plea in the affidavit, changing the character and nature of the suit. Therefore, no prejudice
would be caused to the respondent, if the said application is allowed.
learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
3
the property was coparcenary properties and now the new plea raised by stating that property is a self acquired property. In the aforesaid suit,
evidence of both sides concluded and both sides arguments have been concluded. At this stage, the present application is filed, the petitioner
has not satisfied under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the application, unless the petitioner satisfies the Court, the amendment application cannot be allowed. In the absence of any satisfactory reasons, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application. Hence, this
Court finds no error or illegality in the order passed by the court below
and the same is confirmed.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No order
as to costs.
13.02.2018
Index : Yes/ No Speaking order/ Non speaking order [Issue order copy on 02.05.2018] avr
4
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,
avr
To
The District Judge, District Court Hall No.II,
Kancheepuram.
CRP (PD) No. 430 of 2018
and
C.M.P. No. 2280 of 2018
13.02.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an error in dismissing the petitioner's application to amend the plaint to change the nature of the property from coparcenary to self-acquired at the evidence conclus
Whether under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC an amendment can be allowed at the stage of evidence conclusion without satisfactory reasons.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manonmani alias Mani Ammal
Perumal
D. Krushnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
