Dismissed

Rajendiran v. C.Muthu

Madras HC7 Jan 2020CRP/1237/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing amendment of a plaint to seek recovery of possession. The court found no illegality in the amendment and directed the trial court to dispose of the pending suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file additional written statement; suit directed to be disposed within six months.

Rajendiran Vs C.Muthu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P. PD 1237 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.01.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

C.R.P. (PD) 1237 of 2015
and
M.P. 1 of 2015
M.Rajendiran ... Petitioner
Versus
1. C.Muthu
2. R.Moorthy ... Respondents
PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal
order in I.A. 535 of 2014 in O.S. 105 of 2013, dated 07.02.2015,
on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Vellore
District.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.PA.Sudeshkumar For Respondents : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar

¶8

1/5

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

C.R.P. PD 1237 of 2015

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order allowing the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs to amend the plaint.

¶13

The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration, and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Alleging that, pending suit, the petitioner/defendant has trespassed into the suit schedule property, occupied the land and put up a hut, they wanted to amend the plaint for recovery of possession. The Trial Court has allowed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶14

Mr. PA. Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶15

petitioner would contend that, the petitioner has not encroached any of the property belongs to the plaintiffs. Even in the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs, they did not mention on what date, the petitioner has encroached the property, and with vague allegations, the above application has been filed. The Trial Court without considering the same, has allowed the application.

¶16

2/5

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

C.R.P. PD 1237 of 2015

¶19

Per contra, Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs would contend that, originally, the suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction. Pending suit, the petitioner has trespassed into the suit schedule property, occupied the land, and put up a wall, which is necessitated to amend the plaint. The Trial Court has also rightly allowed the application.

¶20

I have heard and considered rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents and perused the records carefully.

¶21

Originally, the suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiffs, pending suit, the petitioner/defendant has encroached the suit schedule property, occupied the land and also put up a wall. Hence, they wanted to amend the prayer in the suit seeking for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Considering the fact that, the defendants said to have trespassed into the suit schedule property, and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application. I find no

¶22

3/5

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

C.R.P. PD 1237 of 2015

¶25

illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below, and I find no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶26

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file additional written statement in the suit before the court below. Further, since the suit is pending from the year 2013, the Trial Court is directed proceed with the trial, and dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition in M.P. 1 of 2015 is closed.

¶27

07.01.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rpp To The Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Vellore District.

¶28

4/5

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

C.R.P. PD 1237 of 2015

¶31

V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.

¶32

rpp
C.R.P.PD 1237 of 2015
and
M.P. 1 of 2015
07.01.2020

¶33

5/5

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

Rajendiran v. C.Muthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendiran v. C.Muthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Venugopalakrishnan Vs Annalakshmi

Balasubramaniam Vs Guruvan

M.v.Raghunathan Vs Mr.S.Rajamani Nadar (Deceased)

Rt.Rev.Thimothy Ravinder Vs Arumaimani Sam

U.Bakkyalakshmi Vs U.Ramya

B.Rucki Vs Sundaram