In a Civil Revision Petition, the Madras High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting an amendment application. The court ordered the survey number to be corrected upon payment of costs, noting the suit involved a mandatory injunction.
The challenged order was set aside and the amendment prayer allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 as costs.
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 OF MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
C.R.P. (PD).No.3258 of 2015
and MP.No.1 of 2015
John Samuvel Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs
1.Jeeva
2.Sumathi Respondents/ Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18.06.2015 made in I.A.No.106 of 2015 in O.S.No.82 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Coonoor.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Franklin
For Respondents : Mr.N.Damodaran for R1
No appearance for R2
ORDER
The order under challenge in the present revision is the rejection of petitioner application seeking for amendment of the Survey Number of the suit property. The Court below has rejected the petitioner application on the ground that the application has
2
been made belatedly filed, after a lapse of four years and three months and by observing that earlier, the petitioner has filed another amendment petition, which also came to be allowed and at which point of time, the petitioner did not seek for amendment of
the Survey Number.
3
such well founded findings. Nevertheless, it is seen that the suit is
one for permanent and mandatory injunction. The petitioner seeks for an amendment in connection with Survey No.61/2B, which has
been wrongly stated as S.No.61/2 in the original plaint. Since the relief sought for is permanent and mandatory injunction, I am unable to see the prejudice that could be caused to the respondents herein. As a matter of fact, the amendment, if ordered, it would assist the Court for proper adjudication. The delay in approaching the trial Court for the amendment since is inordinate, the same could be set right by putting the petitioner herein under terms.
5.Hence, the order made in I.A.No.106 of 2015 in O.S.No.82
of 2008 dated 18.06.2015 is set aside. Consequently, the prayer
sought for in I.A.No.106 of 2015 in O.S.No.82 of 2008 shall stand allowed to the effect that the Survey No.61/2, wherever found in the plaint, shall stand amended as Survey No.61/2B, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents herein and file a memo of proof of cost paid before the trial Court. On receipt of such memo, the trial Court is called upon to carry out suitable amendments in the plaint in OS.No.82 of 2008.
4
6.With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition
stands ordered. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
02.01.2019
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes
vkr/tsh
To
The District Munsif, Coonoor.
5
M.S.RAMESH, J.
vkr/tsh
C.R.P. PD.No.3258 of 2015
02.01.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can set aside the trial court's rejection of a belated amendment application seeking correction of survey number in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.
John Samuvel
Jeeva
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
