This judgment dismisses a civil revision petition under Article 226 challenging the dismissal of an amendment application in a property suit appeal. The Court held the trial judge's order free of infirmity.
Civil Revision Petition C.R.P(MD)No.73 of 2019 stands dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.73 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P(MD)No.73 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD)No.360 of 2019
Kaliamoorthy
...Petitioner/Appellant/ Plaintiff
Vs.
1.S.Parvathy
2.S.Rajagopal @ Baskar
3.Kalavathi
4.S.Sankar
5.S.Karunakaran
6.P.Kamalaveni
7.R.Subramani
8.R.Kaalimuthu
...Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the original records pertaining to I.A.No. 417 of 2017 in A.S.No.17 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli and set aside the same.
1/5
C.R.P(MD)No.73 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.Nirajan S.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Narayanan
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in I.A.No.417 of 2017 in A.S.No.17 of 2016.
appears that he filed a suit in O.S.No.936 of 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction, which was ultimately dismissed on 21.07.2015. Hence, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2016. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner has filed an application to amend the prayer so as to have the relief of recovery of possession, since the possession was delivered upon the plaintiff in pursuance of decree in O.S.No.936 of 2010, which was appealed in A.S.No.17 of 2016. Against the order of delivery, it appears that the petitioner herein has moved an application for re-delivery in E.A.No.39 of 2012, which was subsequently dismissed on 12.01.2016.
2/5
C.R.P(MD)No.73 of 2019
3/5
C.R.P(MD)No.73 of 2019
pendency of the suit. Further, the nonchalant conduct was also considered for dismissing the amendment application. Therefore, this Court could not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Trial Judge.
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.08.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn
To
1.The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
C.R.P(MD)No.73 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)No.73 of 2019
02.08.2023
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the application to amend the plaint for inclusion of delivery of possession prayer.
Whether the civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of the amendment application is sustainable.
Kaliamoorthy
S. Parvathy
S. Rajagopal
Kalavathi
S. Sankar
S. Karunakaran
C. Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
