Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order dismissing applications to amend suit valuation and court fee. The High Court allowed the revision, holding the trial judge's reasoning erroneous and interfering with the order to effectuate the purpose of valuation.
Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order of trial court interfered with; no order as to costs.
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.(MD)No.1759 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 19.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2017 and CMP(MD)No.9478 of 2017
1.Lakshmi
2.Lakshmi
3.Gurusamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Karuppiah
2.Pushpam
3.Guruvammal
4.Kanchana Devi
5.Jayaprakash
6.Sumathy ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.07.2017 made in I.A.No.91 of 2017 in O.S.No.56 of 2014 on the file of
C.R.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2017
the District Munsif Court, Devakottai and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi for R1 & R3 : Mr.R.Balasubramanian for R5 & R6 : No appearance for R2 & R4
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.07.2017 made in I.A.No.91 of 2017 in O.S.No.56 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai.
It appears that the petitioners herein have filed the suit for partition and for permanent injunction. In which, the defendants filed the written statement stating that some of the property of one Mariappan have not been included in the plaint. Therefore, the suit is to fail for partial partition. It appears that thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an amendment application in I.A.No.885 of 2015 to include the suit property, which was mentioned in the written
C.R.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2017
statement and the same was allowed on 31.03.2016.
has allowed the amendment in respect of the first and third proposed amendments and has dismissed the application with regard to the second and fourth amendments. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
C.R.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2017
Judge is erroneous, and submit that what they wanted is only an amendment in respect of the value of the property and payment of Court fee and such amendment will not alter the nature of the suit.
and perused the materials available on record.
C.R.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2017
the property in the body of the plaint, other then the valutation column will make no difference.
by the learned trial judge is to be interfered with, otherwise, very purpose of the valuation could not be done effectively.
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index :Yes/No sbn
To
5/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2017
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
sbn
C.R.P.(MD)No.1759 of 2017 and CMP(MD)No.9478 of 2017
19.07.2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of an application to amend the valuation for payment of court fee was erroneous given the impractical consequences.
Lakshmi
Gurusamy
Karuppiah
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
