Dismissed

Alagulakshmi v. Duraipandian

Madras HC1 Oct 2019CRP(MD)/1583/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision was filed against an order rejecting a plea to reject the plaint for lack of cause of action disclosure. The court held that the cause of action was adequately pleaded under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. However, the High Court noted the plaint was illegally amended after the petitioner had responded without a formal court order, directing an internal enquiry against the registry staff.

What did the court decide?

The Order in O.S. No.439 of 2002 was confirmed, and the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.

Alagulakshmi Vs Duraipandian — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P. (PD) (MD)No.1583 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

Alagulakshmi ... Petitioner/Petitioners/Defendant Vs. Duraipandian ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶6

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order dated 16.06.2011 made in I.A.No.110 of 2010 in O.S. No.439 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul and set aside the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance

¶8

For Respondent : Mr.A.R.Sethupathy

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The defendant is the revision petitioner before this Court. The challenge is to an application refusing to reject the plaint filed by the respondent / plaintiff.

¶11

2.It is necessary to allude briefly to the facts of the case in order to appreciate the challenge to the impugned order.

¶12

3.The respondent / plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.439 of 2002 before the learned Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,28,400/- together with interest on Rs.1,00,000/- at the rate of 24% per annum from the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had borrowed the said amount promising to repay the same every month at the rate of Rs.100/- and on 10.07.2000 the plaintiff executed a promissory note. The defendant did not keep his promise and hence, legal notice was also sent on 22.08.2002. However, there was no response from the defendant either in the form of reply or in the form of payment, though the said notice has been received by him on 23.08.2002.

¶13

4.The original plaint did not contain the paragraph with reference to cause of action and the jurisdiction.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The defendant filed written statement wherein she had

¶15

1/6

¶16

C.R.P. (PD) (MD)No.1583 of 2011

¶17

specifically pleaded the fact that the suit did not contain the necessary paragraph with reference to cause of action. She would deny the execution of promissory note as well as the borrowal. The said written statement has been filed on 13.12.2002. Thereafter, when the matter was posted for trial, the petitioner / defendant came forward with an application in I.A.No.110 of 2010 on 22.03.2010 seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and the plaint has been filed without the cause of action column.

¶18

6.The said application was resisted by the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein. He submitted that the said application was nothing but a ploy to protract the proceedings and the counter would narrate the various proceedings that have been initiated by the defendant at each juncture. The plaintiff / respondent would plead that the allegation about the cause of action column is absolutely erroneous, since the plaint contain the said column.

¶19

7.The learned Principal Sub Court, Dindigul by its order dated 16.06.2011proceeded to dismiss the said application on the ground that the application was nothing but a tool to protract the proceedings and the casue of action column has already been inserted into and therefore, the stand taken by the defendant was absolutely without basis. Challenging the said order, revision petitioner filed the present petition before this Court.

¶20

8.Mr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the plaintiff has pointed out the fact that the plaint did not contain any narration regarding the cause of action, even in the written statement filed by her in the year 2002. That apart, the learned counsel would contend that the plaintiff / respondent had served an affidavit and petition upon the revision petitioner for amending the plaint by making insertion in paragraph 3 and also inserting paragraph 5 (a), after paragraph 5. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the said amendment, which has been made in the plaint as observed by the learned Judge is without any order of the Court and therefore, the finding of the learned Judge with regard to the insertion of paragraph 5(a) relating to the narration of the cause of action is totally erroneous.

¶21

9.Per contra, Mr.A.R.Sethupathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would argue that the cause of action is found in other paragraphs and the cause of action paragraph is available in the amended plaint and therefore, the learned Judge's order does not suffer from any infirmity and it should be sustained.

¶22

10.Heard the learned counsel on either side. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2/6

¶24

C.R.P. (PD) (MD)No.1583 of 2011

¶25

11.From the notes paper, it appears that this Court by an order dated 24.06.2015 had directed the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul to give an explanation as to why the addition has been made in the amended plaint. A report has also been submitted by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul dated 10.07.2015. This Court is not satisfied with the report that has been given by the Court below as would be evident from the narration herein below.

¶26

12.To appreciate the issue on hand, it is necessary to consider the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C., deals with the particulars that should be contained in the plaint. Likewise, Order VI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure would state that the form of pleadings has to be as per Appendix A of the Code of Civil Procedure. A reading of Appendix A, which deals with the form of the plaint, there is nothing to state that there should be a separate paragraph for detailing the cause of action that has given raise to the lis . Therefore, a reading of the plaint, reveals that the plaintiff has made out a cause of action for filing of the suit. Therefore, in this regard, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Court below.

¶27

13.Though the revision petition is dismissed, this Court wishes to place on record the fact that the report submitted by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul does not reflect the true state. This Court arrives at this conclusion on the basis of the averments in the written statement dated 13.12.2002. In the written statement, it is clearly stated that the plaint does not contain the cause of action column. In the written statement, the defendant would state as follows:

¶28

4)thjpapd; gpuhJf;F ahbjhU tpah$;$pa K:yKk; fpilahJ. thjp gpuhjpy; jhth g [nuhnehl;L vq;F itj;J vGjg;gl;lJ vd;W gpuhjpy; brhy;yhjjpy; ,Ue;nj thjpapd; g [nuhnehl;L nkhroahdJ vd;gJ bjhpa tUk;. jhth g [nuhnehl;Lf;F ahbjhU cause of action-Dk; fpilahJ. gpuhjpy; cause of action-Dk; brhy;yhjjpdhny gpuhJ rl;lg;go js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;l ntz;Lk;. thjpapd; gpuhJ rl;lg;go bry;yj;jf;fJ ,y;iy. epiyepw;fj;jf;fJk; ,y;iy.

¶29

14.The petition under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., has been filed on 23.03.2010 reiterating the terms pleaded in the written statement. It is seen that on 25.03.2010, after receipt of application for rejecting the plaint, the plaintiff had taken out an application for amending the plaint. In the said affidavit filed in support of the application, the plaintiff has stated as follows:

¶30

i\ tHf;fpd; tpguq;fs; midj;Jk; tHf;Fiuapy; Fwpg;gpl;oUf;fnwd;. i\

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tHf;Fiuapy; tHf;F K:yk; gw;wpa tpguk; Fwpg;gplhky; tpLgl;Lg; nghapUf;fpwJ. i\

¶32

3/6

¶33

C.R.P. (PD) (MD)No.1583 of 2011

¶34

tHf;Fiuia ilg; bra;jbghGJ jtWjyhf tHf;F K:yk; gw;wpa tpguk; ilg; bra;ahky; tpLgl;Lg; nghapUf;fpwJ. mJ Clerical error MFk;. mJ bja;thjPdkhf Vw;gl;ljhFk;. i\ jtWjy; ntz;Lbkd;W Vw;gl;ljy;y. i\ jtWjy; ,g;bghGJ jhd; vdf;F bjhpate;jJ. mjdhy; tHf;F K:yk; gw;wpa tpguj;ijf; Fwpg;gpl;L tHf;Fiuia jpUj;jpf; bfhs;s mDkjpaspj;J cj;jut [ gpwg;g [tpf;f ntz;oapUf;fpwJ. ,y;yhJnghdhy; vdf;F <L bra;a Koahj f;l e;lq;fs; Vw;gl;LtpLk;. tHf;Fiuia jpUj;jpf; bfhs;tjw;F vjph;kDjhh;/gpujpthjpf;F epahakhd Ml;nrgid vJt[k ; ,Uf;fj;jf;fjpy;iy.

¶35

And the petition has been filed seeking the following amendment:

¶36

“ ”

¶37

a) gpuhJ ghuh 3y; jhf;fy; bra;agl;oUf;Fk; gpuhkprhp nehl;il vd;gij mLj;J“ ” “rpd;dhsg;gl;oapy; thjpapd; tPl;oy; itj;J”vd;Wk;>

¶38

b) gpuhJ ghuh 5 I mLj;J> 5.(“ a) tHf;F K:yk; thjpf;F gpujpthjp Jif bfhlhjJ ,t;tHf;fpd; K:yk;. mJ thjpaplk; gpujpthjp fldhf buhf;fk; U:.1>00>000-00 (U:gha; xU yl;rk; kl;Lk;) bgw;Wf;bfhz;L jhth gpuhkprhp nehl;il vGjpf; bfhLj;j njjpahd 10.07.2001k; njjpapYk; thjp gpujpthjpf;F tHf;fwpQwQh; K:yk;

¶39

mwptpg;g [ mDg;gpa njjpahd 22.08.2002k; njjpapYk; i\ mwptpg;ig gpujpthjp bgw;Wf; bfhz;l njjpahd 23.08.2002k; njjpapYk; gpujpthjp gjpy; mwptpg;g [ mDg;gpa njjpahd 23.08.2002k; njjpapYk; mjd;gpd; xt;bthU ehSk; jhth gpuhkprhp nehl;il gpujpthjp vGjpf; bfhLj;j ,lkhd rK:fk; ePjpkd;w mjpfhu tuk;gpw;Fl;gl;l jpz;Lf;fy; khtl;lk;> jpz;Lf;fy; tl;lk;> rpd;dhsg;gl;oapy; cw;gj;jp”vd;Wk; tHf;Fiuiaj; jpUj;jpf; bfhs;s ntz;Lk;

¶40

No doubt this application has not been filed and numbered though the plaintiff has served a copy on the revision petitioner.

¶41

15.From the above, it is, therefore, clear that the plaint had not been amended till 25.03.2010. Originally, the plaint which was taken on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul did not contain paragraph 5(a). It is also seen from the report of the Principal Sub Judge that no application for amending the plaint has been taken up and that amendment has taken place even before the suit has been numbered. This report appears to be flawed in the light of the reading of the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition.

¶42

16.It is evident that the learned Principal Sub Judge has not taken note of the specific order of this Court, which was passed on 24.06.2015 stating as follows:

¶43

The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.439 of 2002 before the learned Principal Sub Court, Dindigul against the petitioner herein, praying for a money decree for a sum of Rs.1,28,400/-. The petitioner received summons along with the copy of plaint in O.S.No.439 of 2002. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶44

4/6

¶45

C.R.P. (PD) (MD)No.1583 of 2011

¶46

petitioner filed written statement and contested the matter.

¶47

2.The suit was filed on 17 September 2002. Thereafter, the Court office has permitted the respondent to make corrections in the plaint. The cause of action paragraph was included in the plaint subsequently. The plaint originally filed was typewritten. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the cause of action paragraph. In the meantime, corrections were made with the connivance of Court staff. The application was not pressed by the respondent subsequently. In case, corrections and additions were made while presenting the plaint, there was no need to file application for amendment by the respondent. Therefore, the Registry of the Court in collusion with the respondent appears to have permitted the respondent to make amendment to the plaint, after summons was served on the petitioner with copy of plaint.

¶48

3.The Registry is directed to call for explanation from the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul forthwith as to how the Court permitted the respondent to incorporate certain facts with regard to cause of action after filing the plaint.

¶49

4.The report should be filed on 13 July 2015. 5.Post on 13 July 2015.

¶50

17.The Principal Sub Judge has not taken notice of the observations of this Court. It is clearly evident that the interpolation in the plaint has taken place after the filing of application for rejecting the plaint and the same has been done with the active connivance of the staff. The learned Principal Sub Judge is directed to hold an enquiry in this regard and take action against the concerned staff and report to this Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The suit in O.S.No.439 of 2002 shall not be proceeded with till the enquiry is concluded. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶52

// True Copy //

¶53

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶54

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶55

5/6

¶56

C.R.P. (PD) (MD)No.1583 of 2011

¶57

gns

¶58

¶59

The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.

¶60

Copy to The Section officer VR Section,

¶61

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai-2 copies

¶62

+1 CC to M/s.T.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-90684[F] dated 01/10/2019 )

¶63

+1 CC to M/s.J. LAWRANCE, Advocate ( SR-90946[F] dated 03/10/2019 )

¶64

C.R.P. (PD) (MD)No.1583 of 2011 01.10.2019

¶65

KM/(30.10.2019) 6P 6C

¶66

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶67

6/6

Alagulakshmi v. Duraipandian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alagulakshmi v. Duraipandian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kovilpatti Sarvodaya Sangh Vs Saraswathi

S.Shanmugam Vs Nellai Agp Chit Funds

Durairaj Vs Thangavel

Aravind Subramanian Vs Siva Subramanian @

Govindan Vs Nagendran

Viyahappan Vs Vasantha