The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that refused to amend a plaint in a specific performance suit. The court held that amendment to introduce a new survey number was not permitted when the suit was based on a sale agreement for a different property.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
C.R.P.(PD) No.4072 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
C.R.P(PD).No.4072 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
B. Rucki ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sundaram
2. Kavitha
3. Kaveri ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set-aside the fair and decreetal orders
dated 15.06.2015 passed in I.A.No.50 of 2014 in O.S.No.48 of
2010 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kotagiri.
For Petitioner : Mrs. R. Meenal For respondents : Mr. L. Mouli
1/5
C.R.P.(PD) No.4072 of 2015
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint.
2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kotagiri for specific performance based on a Sale Agreement, said to have been executed by the respondents/defendants in respect of Survey NO.1714 of Kotagiri Village and Taluk. In the above suit, the respondents/defendants filed a written statement denying the execution of the sale agreement and also stated that the defendants are not the owners of the property in respect of survey No.1714. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.50 of 2014 to amend the survey number in the suit schedule property as Survey No.2039/42 instead of Survey No.1714 and the trial Court by an order dated 15.06.2015 dismissed the application. Now, challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
2/5
C.R.P.(PD) No.4072 of 2015
available on records carefully.
based on a sale agreement said to have executed by the respondents/defendants in respect of Survey No.1714. When a
suit has been filed seeking the relief of specific performance based on a sale agreement in respect of above survey number, merely because the defendants deny the ownership of that survey number, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot amend the schedule of the property including new survey number, which is not subject matter of the sale agreement, this Court has to go by the survey number found in the sale agreement. Considering the
above said facts, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial
Court and I find no merit in the revision.
3/5
C.R.P.(PD) No.4072 of 2015
closed.
07.01.2020
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking order
mrp
To
The District Munsif Court,
Kotagiri, the Nilgiris.
4/5
C.R.P.(PD) No.4072 of 2015
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J
mrp
C.R.P.(PD) No.4072 of 2015
07.01.2020
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a plaintiff can amend the schedule of property to a new survey number in a specific performance suit when the subject property was originally misidentified.
Whether the trial court acted correctly in dismissing the application to amend the plaint given the denial of ownership of the original property.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B. Rucki
Sundaram
Kavitha
Kaveri
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
