Dismissed

Sheik Abdul Kader v. Ahammed Farida Ammal

Madras HC6 Jul 2023CRP(MD)/1776/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing an amendment application in a property suit. The Court held that the amendment was not barred by res judicata as the scope of the claim differed from a prior dismissed application.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; liberty granted to raise all defences before the trial Court; connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sheik Abdul Kader Vs Ahammed Farida Ammal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.1776 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1776 of 2018 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD) No.7782 of 2018

¶8

Sheik Abdul Kader

¶9

Ahammed Farida ... Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants

¶10

-vs-

¶11

Ahammed Farida Ammal ... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 22.06.2018, passed in I.A.No.425 of 2018 in O.S.No.84 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Laxman

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

¶16

petitioners/Defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(MD).No.1776 of 2018

¶20

the fair and decretal order dated 22.06.2018, passed in I.A.No.425 of 2018 in O.S.No.84 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri.

¶21

2. The defendants are the petitioners before this Court and they came up with a revision against the order passed by the learned trial Judge in the amendment application in I.A.No.425 of 2018, dated 22.06.2018. Before the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application for amendment in respect of removal of the water pipe and sewage pipes affixed in the wall situated on the plaintiff's property. After elaborate enquiry, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application on 22.06.2018.

¶22

3. Aggrieved with the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that, the impugned order in the amendment application is the 5 th amendment application. Out of them, some of the applications were dismissed as withdrawn. And I.A.No.903 of 2017, which is the previous amendment application to the impugned I.A.No.425 of 2018 was dismissed on merits on 22.09.2017. According to the revision petitioners, the amendment which is sought in the I.A.No.425 of 2018 is an identical

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

C.R.P.(MD).No.1776 of 2018

¶26

amendment sought in the I.A.No.903 of 2017, which was ultimately dismissed by the learned trial Judge on 22.09.2017 on merits. Therefore, the main objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned amendment application is barred by the principles of res judicata .

¶27

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff explained to this Court by referring to the amendments sought in the I.A.No. 903 of 2017 and the amendment sought in I.A.No.425 of 2018, that in the earlier amendment application in I.A.No.903 of 2017, the plaintiff has stated that the wall belongs to them, and therefore, they wanted for a declaration and for a mandatory injunction. But, in the subsequent present amendments sought in I.A.No.425 of 2018, the plaintiff restricted the claim only to a fixture in the wall and they admitted that the wall measuring about 20 feet 1.5 feet belongs to the defendants and what they wanted is only the removal of the fixture in the wall.

¶28

5. Therefore, this Court is very much satisfied that the subsequent amendment in I.A.No.425 of 2018 is not in respect of the wall. Therefore, the subsequent application is not barred by the principles of res judicata. Once

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.(MD).No.1776 of 2018

¶32

this Court is satisfied that there is no res judicata, then there is no impediment to permit all the petition mentioned amendments. Therefore, the amendments sought for are liable to be allowed.

¶33

6. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order of the learned trial Judge do not have any manifest error requiring interference by this Court. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to give liberty to raise all the defences before the trial Court. Accordingly, liberty is given to the parties to raise all the defences before the trial Court according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶35

06.07.2023

¶36

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

¶37

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

C.R.P.(MD).No.1776 of 2018

¶39

¶40

The Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri.

¶41

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

C.R.P.(MD).No.1776 of 2018

¶43

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶44

ebsi

¶45

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1776 of 2018

¶46

06.07.2023

¶47

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Sheik Abdul Kader v. Ahammed Farida Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheik Abdul Kader v. Ahammed Farida Ammal

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

Poomayil Vs Rakkan

Marikannu Vs S.Muthusamy

N.Thayasowmi Vs S.Ariramakrishnan

Muthuvenkatachalapathi Vs Ramiah @ Ramakrishnan Ambalam

Vathsala Vs the Executive Engineer

A/M Sri Vembadi Sudalaimadasam Vs Government of Tamilnadu