The Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an interlocutory application seeking amendment of a plaint against legal heirs. The High Court held the amendment attempted to alter the suit's nature after trial commencement and lacked factual basis regarding the deceased borrower's estate.
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.
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019 and CMP.No.26800/2019
[Virtual Mode]
Jeevanandham .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Thangam
.. Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.10.2019 passed in
I.A.No.464/2018 in O.S.No.59/2015 on the learned Principal District Judge,
Namakkal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishna Prasad
For Respondents : No appearance
1 Page of 6
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019
ORDER
2 Page of 6
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019
heirs of the deceased borrower, the Suit came to be filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,47,400/- being the principal and interest payable for the loan borrowed by the husband of the 1st defendant. The defendants filed the Written Statement denying the averments made in the plaint.
(5) The loan transaction as such was also denied. The Pronote was also disputed by denying the signatures of the borrower as stated in the plaint. Three years and few months after filing the Suit, the revision petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.464/2018 for amendment of plaint. The details of amendment is stated in the petition as follows:
(6) The application for amendment was contested by the defendants on
the ground that the omission of a proper plea to file the Suit against
the legal heirs cannot be termed as typographical error and that the
3 Page of 6
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019
plaint cannot be amended after the limitation. The Trial Court found that the omission to seek prayer in the plaint as against the estate of the deceased is not inadvertent. The Suit was filed in the year, 2015. The application for amendment was filed after the plaintiff was examined and cross examined by the defendants.
(7) It is admitted that in the plaint the plaintiff has not even shown any property that belonged to the deceased borrower. The Trial Court found that the Suit as against the estate of the deceased cannot be maintained without even describing the property of the deceased. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the plaintiff came to notice the omission during cross examination. After the commencement of trial, a party to the Suit cannot be permitted to amend the pleading as a matter of course. In the present case, the nature and character of Suit will change if the amendment is allowed.
4 Page of 6
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019
filed nearly three years and few months after the Suit was filed is not maintainable. This Court is unable to find any error in the order of the Lower Court dismissing the petition for amendment.
(9) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed . No costs. 02.02.2022 cda Internet : Yes To The Principal District Court, Namakkal.
5 Page of 6
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
cda
CRP.PD.No.4100/2019
02.02.2022
6 Page of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court can find error in the lower court's dismissal of a plea to amend a plaint after the commencement of trial and limitation concerns.
Whether the nature and character of a suit changes significantly when leaving the legal heirs of a deceased borrower without specific property details.
Jeevanandham
Thangam
Ashok Kumar
Anitha Subash
S.S. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
