Court dismissed a petition to amend plaint claiming irreparable loss due to incorrect party descriptions, holding amendment unjustified without enclosing the prior relevant plaint to verify identity of persons involved.
Order dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying for amendment of 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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Eleventh day of April Two Thousand Nineteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN
CMP(MD) No.1849 of 2019
IN
AS No.630 of 2002 IN
CROS.OBJ.43 of 2003
Vs
12 P. UMAMAHESWARI ... RESPONDENTS/1 TO 12 APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to amend the averments in para 4 and the line about 6 to 9 of the plaint in OS No.975 of 1993 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy instead of Thangamuthu had two wifes. one Baluperiannan was born to him through his first wife. The 5th defendant herein is second wife of Thangamuthu muthiriar and the 6th defendant herein is his son, born through the second wife as Thangamuthu had two wifes. One Baluperiannan was born to him through his first wife. The 5th defendant herein is second wife of Thangamuthu Muthiriar and she was not having any issue. The 6th defendant herein is his son born through the first wife
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer in AS. 630/ 2002 :
To prefer the above memorandum of grounds of First Appeal
2
against the judgment and decree dated 12/06/2000 in O.S No.975/93 before the Second Addl.Sub Court, Trichy.
ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.V.ILLANCHEZIAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.SARAVANAN,for Mr.R.SUBRAMANIAN,Advocate for R1 to R5 and Mr.T.A.EBENEZER,Advocate for R8 and Not appearance for R9,R10,R12, the court made the following order:-
[Orders Reserved on 03.04.2019]
The Respondents 1 to 5 in A.S.No.630 of 2002, on the file of this Court are the petitioners herein.
“Thangamuthu had two wives, one Baluperiannan was born to him through his first wife. The 5th defendant herein is second wife of Thangamuthu Muthiriar and the 6th defendant herein is his son, born through the second wife”
3
cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, they prayed for amendment.
“ 6k; vjphthjpapd; mz;zd; ghY bghpaz;zd; vd;gtiu ,e;j jhthtpy; fl;rpahf nrh;f;ftpy;iy jhthr; brhj;Jf;fs; midj;Jk; vq;fSf;Fk; kw;Wk; vjph;thjpfSf;Fk; nrh;e;j ghj;jpag;gl;l bghJf; FLk;g brhj;Jf;fs;. ,e;jr; brhj;Jf;fs; vdJ khkdhh; fUg;gz;z Kj;jphpaUf;Fk; mtuJ kidtpf;Fk; Muk;gj;jpy; ghj;jpag;gl;lJ. ,e;j brhj;Jf;fs; bghUj;J vq;fSf;Fs; ghfkhftpy;iy. VdJ khkpahh; kw;Wk; vdJ khkdhhpd; je;ij Mfpnahh; jw;nghJ capUld; ,y;iy. 6;k; vjph;thjpapd; mz;zd; ghY bghpaz;zd; vd;gth; jhth brhj;Jf;fspd; nghpy; mry; tHf;F vz; 230/65 jpUr;rp rhh;g[ ePjpkd;wjpy; bjhLj;jhh;. me;j tHf;fpy; mtUf;F nru ntz;oa gq;F brhj;Jf;fis rkurkhf nghdjpy; bfhLf;fg;gl;L tpl;ld vdnt mtiu ,e;j jhthtpy; fl;rpahf nrh;f;ftpy;iy. ”
“ It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment shall be subject to certain conditions, namely (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prejudice the other party; and (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation.”
4
in case, if the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioners, the entire facts and circumstances are changed.
different set of facts, in respect to the birth of Baluperiannan, it is very necessary to see the copy of the plaint filed before the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. Now, the petitioners, without enclosing the said document, filed this application after the lapse of 19 years, which would create a doubt whether the petitioners filed this application with bonafide intention or not. The evidence given by D.W.1 that Baluperiannan and Valan Muthiriar are one and the same person is denied on the side of the respondent. So, without any relevant document, we cannot hold that the said two persons are one and the same person. Thereby, without seeing the said crucial document, i.e. copy of the plaint in O.S.No.230 0f 1965, we cannot order for amendment. Further, the said document is a necessary document, to grant the relief in favour of the petitioners. Thereby, for the reasons stated above, this application is filed without any bonafide reasons and the same is liable to be dismissed.
sd/11/04/2019
/ TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO
2 THE II ND ADDITIONAL SUORDINATE JUDGE, TRICHY. +1CC TO Mr.R.SUBRAMANIAN,Advocate Sr.NO.6658 PS/VR/SAR-2/24.04.2019/4P/4C
ORDER
IN
CMP(MD) No.1849 of 2019 IN AS No.630 of 2002 IN CROS.OBJ.43 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :11/04/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an amendment application filed without enclosing the crucial prior plaint can be entertained to establish factual consistency.
Whether allowing the amendment would introduce a new cause of action after the lapse of 19 years without prima facie proof.
Whether the application was filed with bona fide intention given the absence of documentary evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajkumar Gurawara Vs. S.K.Sarwagi & Co.Explained¶46
Rajkumar Gurawara Vs. S.K.Sarwagi & Co.(P) Ltd., (2008 14 SCC 364) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P SARATHA
P THIRUMAVALAVAN
P KARIKALAN
P ANAGAYARAKARASI
P MUTHURASAN
K PARAMASIVAM
R. PONGIAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
