Allowed

Punitha v. Indhirani

Madras HC2 Jan 2020CRP/783/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed Civil Revision Petitions against the District Munsif Court's order granting respondents' applications to amend the plaint, preliminary decree, and property schedule under Sec. 152 and 153 of C.P.C. The court held these applications were not maintainable before the trial court because an appeal against the preliminary decree was pending, and the proper remedy was under Order

What did the court decide?

Orders passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, I.A. 1147 and 1148 of 2017 dated 29.06.2018 are set aside.

Punitha Vs Indhirani — Partition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.01.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019
and
C.M.P. 5164 of 2019
1. S.Punitha
2. S.Ramya
3. S.Sivasankari ... Petitioners
in both C.R.P.s
Vs.
1. R.Indhirani
2. B.Rajakannu
3. N.Geetha
4. R.Radhika
5. S.Santhi
6. S.Rajkumar ... Respondents
in both C.R.P.s
Prayer in C.R.P. 783 of 2019 :- This Civil Revision Petition has
been filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, praying to set
aside the fair and final order of Principal District Munsif Court,
Kallakurichi, dated 29.06.2018 made in I.A. No.1148/2017 in
O.S. 935 of 2004.
Prayer in C.R.P. 784 of 2019 :- This Civil Revision Petition has
been filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India, praying to set

¶7

1/7

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019

¶10

aside the fair and final order of Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, dated 29.06.2018 made in I.A. No.1147/2017 in O.S. 935 of 2004.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sounthar

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.Udayakumar

¶13

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶14

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the

¶15

order allowing the applications filed by the respondents under

¶16

Sec.152 and 153 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint, preliminary

¶17

decree in I.A.1147 of 2017 and also to amend the description of the property in a final decree proceedings.

¶18

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners filed a memo stating that, pending Civil Revision Petition, the 1^st respondent died leaving 2^nd respondent, her husband as her legal representative. Hence, the 2^nd respondent has to be brought on record as legal representative of 1^st respondent. Accordingly, the memo has been recorded.

¶19

2/7

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019

¶22

The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit for partition in O.S. 935 of 2004, on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi seeking for partition. In the above Suit, preliminary decree came to be passed. Challenging the judgment and decree, an appeal has been filed in A.S. 98 of 2008 on the file of III Addl. District Court, Kallakurichi, and the same is pending. In the meantime, the respondents have filed an application for passing a final decree, which is also pending before the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi. While being so, the petitioners, who are defendants 1, 4 and 6 filed an application under Sec.152 and 153 of C.P.C. to amend the schedule of property, and also to amend preliminary decree. The petitioners have also filed another application to amend the schedule in the final decree proceedings. The learned Principal District Munsif has allowed all the applications. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

¶23

Mr.S.Sounthar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that, an application filed under Sec.152 and 153 of C.P.C. is not at all maintainable. Under Sec.152 of C.P.C., only a clerical and arithmetical error can be corrected. To amend the 3/7

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019

¶26

schedule of property as well as the preliminary decree, the applications filed by the respondents are not at all maintainable, especially, when the appeal is pending against the preliminary decree before the appellate court. That apart, even to amend the schedule in the final decree, the application has to be filed in the main suit, not in the final decree application.

¶27

Mr. S.Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶28

respondents would submit that, since some error found place in the survey number, and the extent of property regarding item Nos.2,9,12 of the suit property, they have filed the above applications. They are only intended to amend the plaint, and the decree by quoting the wrong provision of law. Considering all those circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly allowed the applications to meet the ends of justice. Hence, there is no error found in the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶29

I have heard and considered the submissions made by

¶30

learned counsel appearing for petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents, and perused the materials available on record carefully.

¶31

4/7

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019

¶34

Admittedly, a preliminary decree has been passed in the suit as early as in the year 2008. Challenging the judgment and decree, an appeal is also pending. In the above circumstances, if at all, any discrepancy in the suit schedule property, the only remedy available to the respondents is to file necessary application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. before the appropriate forum viz., the first appellate court. The respondents cannot maintain an application under Sec.152 and 153 of C.P.C. before the Trial Court. But, the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi without considering the same, has erroneously allowed the applications. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the orders passed by learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A. 1147 and 1148 of 2017 in O.S. 935 of 2004, dated 29.06.2018 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same are set aside. However, if the respondents want to amend the schedule of property in the plaint, it is always open to them to file appropriate application in the manner known to law.

¶35

5/7

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019

¶38

In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.

¶39

No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

02.01.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
rpp
To
Principal District Judge,
Kallakurichi.

¶41

6/7

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶43

C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784 of 2019

¶44

V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.

¶45

rpp
C.R.P. PDs 783 & 784
of 2019
and
C.M.P. 5164 of 2019
02.01.2020

¶46

7/7

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

Punitha v. Indhirani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punitha v. Indhirani

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

Selvi Vs The Inspector of Police

Sri-La-Sri Sathya Gnana Vs the Commissioner

Sumana Suresh Vs R.Seethalakshmi I.A.S

Krishnamurthy Vs Chinnasamy

Minor Kameswaran Vs Kuppammal

Perumal Vs Madammal