Dismissed

Karthick v. Muppakkarai (Died) 1. Muthulakshmi

Madras HC3 Oct 2023CRP(MD)/2478/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenging a trial court order dismissing an amendment petition was dismissed. The High Court held that because the defendants admitted the amendment was merely typographical and the suit had already pended for 13 years, the trial court correctly refused to entertain the amendment.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as devoid of merit; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs.

Karthick Vs Muppakkarai (Died) 1. Muthulakshmi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12912 of 2023

¶7

Karthick

¶8

Muthukaruppan

¶9

Vasudevan

¶10

Vairavalli Anandan

¶11

Ayyan Perumal

¶12

Vairamuthu

¶13

Seemaichamy

¶14

Perumal

¶15

Pachaimal

¶16

... Petitioners 1 to 9/ Petitioners 2 to 10/ Defendants 2 to 10

¶17

Vs.

¶18

Muppakkarai (died) ... Respondent/ 1^st Plaintiff

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶22

1. Muthulakshmi

¶23

... 1^st Respondent/

¶24

2^nd Respondent/

¶25

2^nd Plaintiff

¶26

(1^st Respondent on representative capacity and Poosari of Five Pangalis of Arulmighu Melaichamy Thirukovil Devotees, Melakulam Village, Kariapatti Taluk,Virudhunagar District)

¶27

Muthuramu (died)

¶28

Ayyappan (died)

¶29

Krishnan

¶30

Periyasamy

¶31

Ramasamy

¶32

Thangamuthu

¶33

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶34

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶35

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶36

The Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

2/8

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶40

The Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶41

The Village Administrative Officer, Melakallankulam Village, Mushtakurichi Post, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶42

The Panchayat President, Melakallankulam Village, Mushtakurichi Post, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents 2 to 12/ Petitioners 13 to 23/ Defendants 13 to 23

¶43

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.03.2023 made in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai and allow the civil revision petition.

¶44

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sasikumar For R6 to R12 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2023 in O.S.No.45 of 2010 dated 24.03.2023 on the file of the

¶47

3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶49

Additional District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, dismissing the amendment petition.

¶50

For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their ranking/status before the trial Court.

¶51

The plaintiff Muppakkarai has filed a suit on representative capacity for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the construction made therein.

¶52

It was represented that when the suit was in part heard stage, the defendants have filed the present application seeking amendment in the written statement in paragraph No.4 while denying the plaint averments “vd;W $WtJk;”was omitted to be typed and hence, the above application came to be filed for incorporating the said words in the written statement. The plaintiff has filed a counter statement raising serious objections to the proposed amendment mainly on the ground that the defendants have admitted that the suit property was belonging to five pangalis. The learned Additional District Munsif, after enquiry, by

¶53

4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶55

observing that though the suit was filed in the year 2010, the defendants were not diligent and that since the suit was pending for 13 years, he was not inclined to allow the proposed amendment and dismissed the amendment application.

¶56

Even according to the defendants 2 to 10, it is only a typographical error and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 2 to 10, the entire paragraph No.4 of the written statement deals with the denial of the plaint averments.

¶57

According to the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 2 to 10, when proof of affidavit of the second defendant was filed, paragraph No.4 of the written statement came to be typed.

¶58

Since the defendants 2 to 10 have themselves admitted that it is only a typographical error and also the fact that denial of plaint averment alone finds place in the said paragraph, seeking amendment of the written statement at this stage and that too, after 13 years since the filing of the suit, is not proper and cannot be entertained. Hence, this Court is not

¶59

5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶61

inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Aruppukottai. Consequently, this Court concludes that the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶63

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶64

03.10.2023

¶65

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm

¶66

¶67

The District Collector, District Collector Office, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶68

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶69

The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶70

6/8

¶71

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

¶72

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶73

The Revenue Inspector, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶74

The Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶75

The Village Administrative Officer, Melakallankulam Village, Mushtakurichi Post, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶76

The Panchayat President, Melakallankulam Village, Mushtakurichi Post, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶77

8.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶78

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023

¶80

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶81

csm

¶82

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.12912 of 2023

¶83

Dated : 03.10.2023

¶84

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karthick v. Muppakkarai (Died) 1. Muthulakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick v. Muppakkarai (Died) 1. Muthulakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Poolraj

The Manager Vs Chinnaiyan

Branch Manager Vs Ponnalagu

Adaikalasamy, Vs Adaikalasamy

Maheshwari, Vs Ponnuthai

Shanmugam Vs the State of Tamilnadu