Dismissed

T.Selvaraj, v. S.K.Gurusamy

Madras HC18 Jul 2023CRP(MD)/2621/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial court's order allowing an amendment to the plaint to add two witnesses, ruling that the names existed in the original pronote and the amendment did not alter the cause of action.

What did the court decide?

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

T.Selvaraj, Vs S.K.Gurusamy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2621 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD) No.11483 of 2018

¶7

T.Selvaraj

¶8

T.Kalidoss

¶9

... Revision Petitioners/Respondents/ Defendants

¶10

-vs-

¶11

S.K.Gurusamy ... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 23.07.2018 made in I.A.No. 135 of 2018 in O.S.No.63 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Mahendran

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.R.Sundar

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners

¶17

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2018

¶21

23.07.2018 made in I.A.No.135 of 2018 in O.S.No.63 of 2017 on the file of

¶22

the Sub Court, Virudhunagar.

¶23

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

¶24

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to according to their litigating status before the trial Court.

¶25

The short facts which give rise to the instant Civil Revision Petition are that the respondent has filed an amendment application to amend the plaint to the effect that at the time of execution of the pronotes, two witnesses, namely, R.Karthiskumar and B.Jeyapandi were present. The said application was objected by the revision petitioners on the ground that such an amendment was brought by the plaintiff only after the cross-examination of the plaintiff, that too, when the defendants have posed the question to the plaintiff as to who were present at the time of execution of the pronote.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2018

¶29

5. However, the learned trial Judge after going into the various aspects, has allowed the application on the ground that the two names, which the plaintiff wants to amend, were already found in the suit pronote and were already marked and available before the Court. Therefore, the amendment which sought for by the plaintiff will in no way change the nature of the suit and the cause of action and also found that they have not introduced any new facts before this Court.

¶30

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

¶31

7. It is the only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment sought for by the petitioners is subsequent to the trial, and has arisen after the specific questions posed to P.W.1 in respect of the person as to whose presence the pronote was executed. No doubt, the application could have been filed, prior to the examination of witnesses. However, the facts of this case have been explained by the learned trial Judge and also found that the suit pronote is available and marked before the Court,

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2018

¶35

and also found that the names which the plaintiff wants to add in the plaint,

¶36

were already exists in the pronote.

¶37

8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, the Court below has rightly exercised jurisdiction and it is pertinent to mention that such an amendment will not give any new facts to the case, which could prejudice the defendants, further such amendment will not also change the cause of action. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the very reasoned order passed by the learned trial Judge under Order 6 Rule 17 and 18 of C.P.C. Therefore, the very Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed . There

¶39

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

¶40

18.07.2023

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

C.R.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2018

¶45

¶46

The Sub Court, Virudhunagar.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

C.R.P.(MD).No.2621 of 2018

¶50

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶51

ebsi

¶52

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2621 of 2018

¶53

18.07.2023

¶54

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

T.Selvaraj, v. S.K.Gurusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Selvaraj, v. S.K.Gurusamy

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

Karunakaran, Vs the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society

R.Bhubanesh Raja, Vs R.Edwin

G.Mohandoss, Vs Mala

Ganapathiya Pillai (Died) Vs Abdul Ali

P. Kannan Vs K. Thamilarasi

Sangeetha,W/O.Shambukumaran, Vs Panneerselvam @ Muthukrishnan