Revision allowed setting aside lower court order dismissing amendment petition. Court held revisioner explained reasons properly for amendment of property description despite denial of shop existence by respondent.
Order dismissing petition for amendment set aside; I.A.No.50 of 2016 allowed.
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
DATED : 15.02.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2358 of 2014
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.11587 of 2017
A.Thandayuthapani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Ariyamangalam Division, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.
3.P.Palaniappan ..Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set-aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.58 of 2014 in O.S.No.168 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge of Tiruchirappalli dated 10.04.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jawahar For R1 and R2 : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan For R3 : No Appearance
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
2
the suit. It is further stated that the third defendant, the original lessee, has subleased the shop in favour of the revision petitioner for carrying on business even from the year 1998 under the name and style of M/s. Karunambigai Traders.
premises, wherein the plaintiff was carrying of business, was locked and sealed by the respondent corporation, without authority with the connivance of third defendant to help the third defendant to take possession. However, the defence taken by the respondents in the written statement is that there is no shop Bearing No.38. However, it was stated that the third defendant was given lease in respect of Shop No.4 situated in the upstairs at Diamond Jubilee Building as lessee by paying monthly rent at Rs.2,000/-. During the pendency of the suit, a Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features and he pointed out that Shop No.38 is not in existence. However, he referred to the position that adjacent to Shop No.37 there is a shop but it bears no door number. Pursuant to the Commissioner's report, the revision petitioner filed a petition for amendment of plaint to amend the description of the property by giving four boundaries to the property. This petition was opposed by the respondents once again on the same ground that there is no shop bearing No.38 and that the shop No.4 alone was leased out in favour of the third respondent.
3
revision petitioner has specifically referred to Sri Karunambika stores as shop in which name he is carrying of business.
Assistant Registrar (T & P)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
ta
To
1.The II Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli
2.The Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.
+1CC TO MR.S.JAWAHAR, Advocate Sr. No. 48261 +1CC TO MR.N.S.KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate Sr. No.47597
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2358 of 2014 15.02.2019
KMR(CO)
TR (08.05.2019) 3P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dismissing the petition for amendment of plaint describing the suit property should be set aside.
Whether the respondent's contention that the shop described by the petitioner does not exist is correct.
A. Thandayuthapani
Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation
Assistant Commissioner, Ariyamangalam Division, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation
P.Palaniappan
S.S. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
