The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order allowing a post-trial amendment to include movable properties (trees and a bore well). The court held that subsequent pleadings cannot override earlier admissions made in depositions.
Civil Revision Petition disposed of; no costs to any party.
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:03.04.2019
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.(PD).No.1384 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
Sarasu .. Petitioner
vs.
1.Vasantha @ Vasanthi
2.R.Natesan .. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order of the learned District Munsif Court at
Sankari, dated 10.02.2011 in I.A.No.1369 of 2010 in O.S.No.281 of
2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan
For Respondent-1 : Mr.N.Manokaran
O R D E R
This Civil Revision has been filed against the interlocutory application which was allowed by the Trial Court seeking an amendment, that too, after completion of examination of P.Ws.1 & 2. The said amendment application was filed by the plaintiff, to include
2
certain movable properties, i.e., trees which were planted by her and a bore well. The Trial Court has allowed the application on the ground that, there is no prejudice caused to other side and to avoid technical defects in the plaint. Against the said amendment application, the second respondent is before this Court.
petitioner/second defendant that, while she pleaded before the Trial
Court to receive additional written statement, wherein she has specifically stated that the trees were planted by her and she only dug the bore well and only in order to take away the said admission made
during cross examination, the said application was filed inter alia contending that, the trees were planted by the plaintiff. Hence, such an amendment will take away rights proved by the defendants. Hence, prayed for allowing this revision.
3
amendment was sought on the ground that, only the plaintiff has grown such trees and made improvements. Such averments in the affidavit is in fact made, after the certain admissions made in the depositions.
4
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J. nl
regard to planting of trees and digging of bore well, since those pleadings are made after admission and merely during trial.
C.R.P.(PD).No.1384 of 2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a post-trial amendment to include movable properties like trees and a bore well was rightly allowed by the trial court.
Whether the subsequent pleadings alleging ownership of the trees and bore well can override earlier admissions made in the depositions.
Whether such an amendment causes prejudice to the defendant warranting quashing of the trial court order.
Sarasu
Vasantha @ Vasanthi
R.Natesan
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
