Dismissed

Mrs.M.Rajathi v. Mr.K.Sadasivam

Madras HC1 Nov 2019CRP(MD)/2320/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the lower appellate court's rejection of an application to amend the grounds of appeal. The lower court had barred amendment to introduce a prayer for declaration as it constituted a new case requiring a separate suit.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file a separate suit for declaration within the limitation period.

Mrs.M.Rajathi Vs Mr.K.Sadasivam — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.2320 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.11.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶3

C.R.P(MD)No.2320 of 2010 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010

¶4

M.Rajathi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant

¶5

Vs. K.Sadasivam ... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent

¶6

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2010 in A.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar for M/s.SARVABHAUMAN ASSOCIATES For Respondents : No appearance

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The petitioner has come forward with the present civil revision petition challenging the order dated 30.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2010 in A.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur.

¶10

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.374 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant and that the said suit was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not established the case with regard to the title of the property and that there is no prayer for declaration.

¶11

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2009 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur and the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.10 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to amend the grounds of appeal.

¶12

The lower appellate Court dismissed the said application on 30.07.2010 on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff tried to introduce a new case and the petitioner/plaintiff ought to have filed a separate suit for declaration. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1/2

¶14

C.R.P(MD)No.2320 of 2010

¶15

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶16

record.

¶17

The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction and that after contest, the judgment and decree came to be passed by the lower Court and the petitioner, after full trial, sought for an opportunity to amend the prayer in the suit seeking for a declaration on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has got title to the property. As the lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to prove the title to the property as well as lawful possession of the property, dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff was trying to fill up the gap by amending the prayer for declaration and the petitioner/plaintiff was given liberty to approach the Court by filing a suit for declaration, if he is advised to do so.

¶18

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate Court in rejecting the interlocutory application seeking to amend the prayer for declaration and accordingly, there is no merit in this revision. Therefore, I am of the view that the relief sought for in this revision cannot be granted and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition fails.

¶19

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that it is open to the petitioner/plaintiff to seek necessary relief before the appropriate forum, however, the Court may entertain the same provided it is well within the limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶22

¶23

The Principal Sub Judge,

¶24

Thanjavur.

¶25

+1 CC to M/s.SARVABHAUMAN ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-95715[F] dated 04/11/2019 )

¶26

rsb

¶27

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

¶28

2/2

Mrs.M.Rajathi v. Mr.K.Sadasivam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.M.Rajathi v. Mr.K.Sadasivam

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

M.Balan Vs M.Usha Mohan

G.Murthi Vs G.Shantha Kumari

Vasu@Anbalagan Naicker Vs Veeramani

Mr.G.Maruthamuthu Vs Mr.K.Sadasivam

Kuppusamy Vs Muthusamy

A.Maheswari Vs R.Balasubramaniam