Dismissed

Pandeeswari v. Shanmugaraj

Madras HC3 Jul 2023CRP(MD)/462/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order allowing an amendment to the counter-claim schedule due to a change in revenue subdivision numbering. The High Court found the amendment necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the trial judge's decision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition and consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Pandeeswari Vs Shanmugaraj — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.462 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.462 of 2018

¶7

and C.M.P(MD) No.2042 of 2018 Pandeeswari ... Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ Plaintiff -vs1. Shanmugaraj 2. Kalidass 3. Subbiah 4. Murugan ... Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 4 5. The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar Taluk, Bye Pass Road, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar. ... 5^th Respondent/ 2^nd Respondent 5^th defendant

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed in I.A.No. 755 of 2017 in O.S.No.118 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhunagar.

¶9

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

¶10

1/5

¶11

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.462 of 2018

¶12

For Petitioners : Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya

¶13

For Respondents : Mrs. S.Mahalakshmi – for R1 to R4 : Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader – for R5

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff

¶16

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed in I.A.No.755 of 2017 in O.S.No.118 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Virudhunagar.

¶17

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. It appears that the defendants 1 to 4 have filed an amendment application before the trial Court to amend the schedule of property mentioned in the counter claim, on the ground that there was a change in the sub division of natham survey number, and came to know about the such change, only at the time of survey by the learned Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, they wanted to amend the schedule of property in their counter claim. Which was ultimately allowed by the learned trial Judge.

¶18

2/5

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.462 of 2018

¶21

3. Aggrieved with the order, the revision petitioner came up with the

¶22

revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner stoutly objected the amendment application and submitted that suit is on part heard stage, and P.W.1 was cross-examined, therefore, the very order in allowing the amendment application is not in order. Therefore, he prayed to allow this revision petition so as to dismiss the amendment application.

¶23

4. However, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the very application was filed only on the ground that they came to know about the mistake of S.F.Number after the survey of the learned Commissioner and such filing of the amendment application will not affect the character of the suit and would further avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

¶24

5. From the facts of the case, it is obvious that only upon the change in the subdivision number by the revenue authorities, the same necessitated the respondents herein to file an amendment application. The learned trial Judge has rightly found that if the amendment application is not allowed, then it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and thereby, allowed the same. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in allowing the said application.

¶25

3/5

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.462 of 2018

¶28

Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the order of the learned

¶29

trial Judge.

¶30

6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

03.07.2023

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

The District Munsif, Virudhunagar.

¶35

The Tahsildar, Virudhunagar Taluk, Bye Pass Road, Madurai Road, Virudhunagar.

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.462 of 2018

¶39

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶40

ebsi

¶41

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.462 of 2018

¶42

03.07.2023

¶43

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

¶44

5/5

Pandeeswari v. Shanmugaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandeeswari v. Shanmugaraj

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

Santhiya Vs Selvi

Rani,W/O.Chandran Vs the Managing Director

T.N.Muslim Munnetrakazhagam Vs the Govt.of India

Regina@Menavathal Mary, Vs Sebasthiyar

Adaikala Mary Vs Sebasthiyar

Saraswathi Vs Lakshmi Traders, Kumbakonam