High Court dismissed two Civil Revision Petitions challenging an order permitting amendment of plaint and impleadment only at the stage of arguments, finding the petitioners lacked due diligence.
Petitioners' Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was 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).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.8157 of 2016
C.R.P.(PD).No.1481 of 2016 :
1.Vajjiram
3.Sivalingam
.. Petitioners
Vs.
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
6.Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri – 5.
.. Respondents
C.R.P.(PD).No.1482 of 2016 :
1.Vajjiram
.. Petitioners
Vs.
4.P.Nagarajan .. Respondents
Common Prayer : These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal orders dated 12.04.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.280 & 279 of 2015 in O.S.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dharmapuri.
2/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
In C.R.P.(PD).No.1481 of 2016 :
For Petitioners : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For R1 : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi For RR 2 to 4 : No appearance For RR 5 & 6 : Dr.S.Suriya Government of Tamil Nadu (CS)
In C.R.P.(PD).No.1482 of 2016 :
For Petitioners : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For R1 : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi For RR 2 to 4 : No appearance
C O M M O N O R D E R
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 12.04.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.280 & 279 of 2015 in O.S.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dharmapuri.
2.The issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and
the same and hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this
common order.
3.The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No.34 of 2013. They filed the
suit against the respondents 1 to 4 for declaration of title and perpetual
3/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'Sengunthar Mudaliar' community of Kumarasami Pettai. The respondents 2 and 3 filed written statement on 23.09.2013 and the 1st respondent filed written statement during February 2014 and are contesting the suit. Issues were framed and Trial commenced. Both the petitioners and respondents have let in evidence and closed their side. At that stage, the petitioners filed the present two applications I.A.No.279 of 2015 for amendment of plaint to include the relief of possession of suit property and I.A.No.280 of 2015 to implead the respondents 5 & 6 as party defendants in the said suit. According to petitioners, in the written statement filed by the respondents, they have stated that Government have taken possession of the suit property and is running a School. The respondents have not filed any document to show that entire suit property was taken possession by the Government. Even though the petitioners do not admit that Government has taken possession of the suit property, by way of abundant caution they are seeking amendment of plaint to include the relief of possession. In spite of due diligence, the petitioners could not file application for amendment earlier. Unless amendment is ordered, petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. The 1st respondent filed counter 4/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
affidavit and submitted that applications are filed after commencement of Trial and when the suit is posted for arguments. The applications filed by the
4.The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit and taking note of the fact that respondents have stated in the written statement that Government has taken possession of the suit property and issue has been framed with regard to possession and petitioners were not diligent enough to file the present petitions earlier, dismissed both the applications by the order dated 12.04.2016 made in I.A.Nos.280 & 279 of 2015.
5.Against the said orders dated 12.04.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.280 &
279 of 2015, the petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petitions.
5/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that
property measuring 53,173 sq.ft comprised in Survey No.247 and 248, Vellay Gounden Pallayam Village, Kumarasami Pettai, Dharmapuri District, belondged to the Sengunthar Mudaliar community of Kumarasami Pettai. The said Sengunthar Mudaliar community through Sengunthar Mahajan Sangam constructed a temple viz., Arul Mighu Sivasubramaniar Samy Tirukovil in the said property with Lord Muruga as the main Deity. They have also constructed a building called Sengunthar Nilayam. They have leased out the said building to Dharmapuri Panchayat Union for running a School by entering into lease deed dated 11.09.1970. The learned Judge failed to see that in order to establish their own School in the above property, the 2nd respondent Society was formed by the community people on 29.12.1989 and School in the name of Thiru Muruga Kribananda Variyar High School was established in the year 1981 after the Municipal School was shifted to a separate building. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised various grounds with regard to ownership of suit property and proceedings before the Joint Commissioner, HR&CE. He further contended that the respondents during Trial filed certain documents with regard to their possession that Government has taken over the School run by Sengunthar Mudaliar community. The learned Judge erred in holding that when the issue
6/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
was framed with regard to possession, the petitioners were not diligent
enough to file the applications earlier. Without considering the claim of the
the real controversy between the parties and prayed for allowing both the Civil Revision Petitions.
Revision Petitions.
8.Though notice has been served on the respondents 2 to 4 in both the Civil Revision Petitions and their names are printed in the cause list, there is no representation for them, either in person or through counsel.
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
C.R.P.(PD).No.1481 of 2016 and perused the entire materials on record.
10.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The 1st respondent and respondents 2 and 3 filed separate written statements and are contesting the suit. The 1st respondent in the written statement has stated that Government has taken possession of the suit property and is running a School. In view of such plea taken by the 1st respondent, the Trial Court while framing issues, framed an issue with regard to possession. Both the petitioners and respondents conducted Trial based on the issues framed by the Court including the issue of possession. After parties completed their evidence and when the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioners have come out with the present two applications for amendment and impleading the respondents 5 & 6 as party defendants. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that during Trial, the 1st respondent has filed certain documents stating that Government has taken possession of the suit property which prompted the petitioners to file the present two applications is contrary to the materials on record and the same is not acceptable. The 1st respondent has taken such a stand in the written statement and an issue with regard to possession was framed by the Trial 8/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners is not acceptable. As far as
the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that plaint can be amended and parties can be impleaded at any stage of the suit is concerned, as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., after commencement of Trial, only when the parties pleads and proves that inspite of due diligence, application for amendment could not be filed before commencement of Trial, the same can be allowed.
11.In the present case, the petitioners, except stating that they could not
file applications before commencement of Trial, they have not given any reason for not filing the applications earlier when the 1st respondent has stated in the written statement that Government has taken possession and an issue has been framed in this regard. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the present applications reveal that petitioners have not admitted the possession taken over by the Government. But according to them, they are filing the applications for amendment to include the relief of possession only by way of abundant caution. From the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioners are not diligent enough to seek amendment of plaint to include the relief of possession before commencement of Trial and the same has been rightly contended by the 1st respondent that these documents are filed only to 9/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
drag on the proceedings. As per the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., only
when the Court is satisfied that the party , in respect of due diligence could not file application before commencement of Trial, the application for amendment can be ordered. In the present case, the learned Judge has given reason to hold that petitioners were not diligent enough to file the applications before commencement of Trial. The learned Judge has considered the entire materials and dismissed both the applications holding that both the applications are filed only to drag on the proceedings. There is no error or irregularity in the order of the learned Judge warranting interference by this Court.
11.In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
26.10.2021
krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
10/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
To
The learned Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri.
11/12
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
V.M.VELUMANI, J. krk
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016
26.10.2021
12/12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the applications for amendment of plaint and impleading respondents due to lack of due diligence and delay.
Whether the Learned Judge erred in holding that the petitioners were not diligent enough to file the applications before the commencement of trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vajjiram
Velumani
Sivalingam
The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Sivasubramaniya Swamy Temple
Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar Kalvi Sangam
State of Tamil Nadu
V.M.Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
