Single judge Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an amendment petition to change suit character from bare injunction to declaration. Bench held late amendment changes suit character and dismissed application.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; First Appellate Court order confirming dismissal of injunction suit stands confirmed.
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.(NPD).No.2403 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2403 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.12411 of 2016 N.Lingappan ... Petitioner/Petitioner /Appellant Vs. 1.S.Nachiappa gounder (Died) 2.N.Velusamy ... Respondents/ Respondents/Respondents nd (sole Petitioner and 2 respondent L.Rs of the deceased R1 Viz S.Nachiaapa Gounder as per the memo dt.05.12.2018 (presented in Court) vide Court order dated 30.01.2019)
PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.59 of 2015 in A.S.No.22 of 2015 on the file of the I Addl. Sub. Judge of Erode, dated 04.02.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy. Senior Counsel for M/S.V.S.Kesavan. For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
( Heard through video conferencing )
This Civil Revision Petition has been arisen out of the order of dismissal
passed by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Erode, dated 04.02.2016 on the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
1/5
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2403 of 2016 2. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. During the pendency of the revision petition, R1 died and the petitioner and the second respondent are recorded as the LR’s of the deceased
nd R1. Despite notice served on R2, no one appeared for the 2 respondent.
the petition filed for amendment filed by the petitioner is to include the relief of declaration and that will not change the character of the suit and further that the Appeal is only a continuation of suit and hence the First Appellate Court ought to have considered the application for amendment and allowed it.
2/5
the petitioner has filed the petition for amending the very relief itself.
not change the character of the suit. It would definitely change the character of the suit from a suit for bare injunction to a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
Court and to cure the reasons on which he lost the case, the learned first 3/5
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2403 of 2016
Appellate court has rightly dismissed the same by observing that the proposed amendment sought by the petitioner at the appellate stage would change the very character of the suit.
Hence, I find no factual or legal infirmity in the order of the Trial Judge in dismissing the petition. Hence, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed and the order of the trial Court is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition in C.M.P.No.12411 of 2016 is also closed. 24.06.2021 Speaking/Non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No jrs To 1.The First Additional Sub Judge, Erode. 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
4/5
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2403 of 2016 R.N.MANJULA,J.
Jrs
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2403 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.12411 of 2016
24.06.2021
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an amendment petition filed in appeal to change a suit for bare injunction to a suit for declaration changes the fundamental character of the suit after the trial has concluded.
Whether the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the application for amendment to the suit on appeal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Lingappan
N.Velusamy
R.N.MANJULA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
