Dismissed

Pitchaiammal(died) v. Murugan

Madras HC12 Sept 2023CRP(MD)/1217/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order dismissing an amendment application. The petitioners sought to withdraw an admission in a reply statement regarding an impersonator as the defendant. High Court found no infirmity in the lower court's decision and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Pitchaiammal(died) Vs Murugan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.1217 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.1217 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD) No.6840 of 2019

¶7

S.Pitchai Ammal (Died)

¶8

Chinnaponnu

¶9

Bose

¶10

Pappa

¶11

Chellakalai

¶12

Murugan ... Petitioners/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs -vs-

¶13

Murugan

¶14

Subramanian 3. Balamurugan 4. Andikonar ... Respondents/Respondents /Defendants

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to amend the reply statement filed by them in I.A.No. 637 of 2018 in O.S.No.113 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai, who dismissed the same on 14.02.2019.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/5

¶18

C.R.P.(MD).No.1217 of 2019

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Maragathavel For Respondents : M/s.M.Nila for Mr.R.Manoharan

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to amend the reply statement filed by them in I.A.No.637 of 2018 in O.S.No.113 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai, who dismissed the same on 14.02.2019.

¶22

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court.

¶23

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the litigative status in the suit.

¶24

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that

¶25

the petitioners have filed a petition to amend the reply statement. In the reply statement, they have admitted Andikonar, who is the 4 th respondent/4 th

¶26

2/5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.R.P.(MD).No.1217 of 2019

¶29

defendant herein, who was a person executed the sale deed in respect of the suit property in S.F.No.105/3. However, subsequent to the filing of the reply statement, on enquiry, they came to know about that Andikonar who is the 4 th defendant is not the real Andikonar who executed the sale deed in their favour. Therefore, they wanted to amend the reply statement by deleting paragraph No.3 and adding as stated in the amendment application.

¶30

5. While perusing the particulars of the amendment, they have stated

¶31

that Andikonar referred to in the reply statement is not the real Andikonar and that the real Andikonar has left from the village and the present 4 th defendant seems to be an impersonator of the said Andikonar.

¶32

6. The said amendment was strongly objected by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that the valuable right conferred upon the defendants is now attempted to be withdrawn by the plaintiffs by way of filing an amendment application.

¶33

7. The Court below, after considering all the aspects, dismissed the

¶34

application on the ground that such withdrawal of admission cannot be

¶35

3/5

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.R.P.(MD).No.1217 of 2019

¶38

permitted. According to this Court, the said finding is in order and as per factual position. Therefore, this Court could not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below.

¶39

8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be

¶40

no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

12.09.2023

¶42

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶43

¶44

Th e District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai.

¶45

4/5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

C.R.P.(MD).No.1217 of 2019

¶48

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶49

ebsi

¶50

C.R.P(MD)No.1217 of 2019

¶51

12.09.2023

¶52

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Pitchaiammal(died) v. Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitchaiammal(died) v. Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinthal Jakkammal, Vs K.Jothi

Perumal, Vs Ponnusamy

S.Kishore Kumar, Vs N.Sekar

Sivapugal Vs v.Meena

N.S.Ahamed Vs Ameerudeen Alias Johny

Kannan Vs the Branch Manager