Allowed

Rangasamy v. Natesan (Died)

Madras HC19 Aug 2024CRP/1909/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application to amend the plaint schedule of property in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Court held that the amendment was a mere omission of details due to inadvertence, did not alter the cause of action, and attracted no limitation. The Trial Court's order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; Trial Court's order rejecting amendment set aside; direction to dispose of suit on merits within 4 months.

Rangasamy Vs Natesan (Died) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023 and C.M.P. No. 12128 of 2023

¶7

Rangasamy ... Petitioner / Petitioner / Plaintiff

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Natesan (Died)

¶10

Dhanalakshmi W/o. Natesan

¶11

Sivarasu, S/o. Natesan

¶12

Nirmala W/o. Saravanan

¶13

Nallammal W/o. Periya Gounder ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 30.09.2022 made in I.A. No. 6 of 2022 in O.S. No. 381 of 2013 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. B.Jawahar For Respondents : Mr. N.Manoharan

¶16

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

¶17

1/11

¶18

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in I.A. No. 6 of 2022 in O.S. No. 381 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.

¶21

Heard Mr. B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff and Mr. N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

The plaint was laid by the present revision petitioner against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also relevant to extract the details of description of property mentioned in the plaint which is set out hereunder:-

¶23

ey;ypghisak; fpuhkk;. gd';Fsp g[";ir kw;Wk; njhl;lk; g[jpa g[y vz;/50-1B D.H.2.77.50 jP/U:/15/45 ,jpy; bjd;gwk; g[/V/3/47/ (,jpy; [ gpujpthjpfs; tifawh rK:fk; ePjpkd;w O.S. No. 143/1999 jPh;g;ghizapy; fz;l bjd;tly jl;rj;jpw;F Fe;jfkpy;yhky;)"

¶24

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

¶25

2/11

¶26

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶27

It appears that where the suit was posted for cross examination of D.W.1, above said petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed by stating that certain details connected to the suit schedule of property such as old tiled house, asbestos house, dilapidated well, bore well, agricultural service connections, electric motors, domestic service connection and yielding coconut trees are omitted to be mentioned and those details to be added by way of amendment.

¶28

The respondents have counteracted by raising objections in the counter to the effect that the said petition is filed by the plaintiff in order to protract the proceedings and the petition lacks bonafides . The proposed amendment now sought to be incorporated in the plaint will attract the law of limitation, hence sought for dismissal.

¶29

For proper appreciation, Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is extracted

¶30

hereunder:-

¶31

"Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may

¶32

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

¶33

3/11

¶34

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶35

be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could

¶36

not have raised the matter before the commencement of

¶37

trial."

¶38

After the Amendment Act No.22 of 2002, the proviso in Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is introduced as hereunder:-

¶39

" Provided that no application for amendment shall be

¶40

allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the

¶41

party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

¶42

An embargo is put in filing applications under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in cases where the trial is commenced.

¶43

In this case, admittedly when the case was posted for the cross

¶44

examination of D.W.1, amendment application was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission of the Trial Court to amend the above said details in the

¶45

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

¶46

4/11

¶47

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶48

plaint schedule of property. The moot question is whether at that stage the plaintiff can maintain such a petition is to be decided.

¶49

Mr. N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that this petition is taken out post trial and the Trial Court has correctly dismissed the petition.

¶50

Amendment details of schedule of property mentioned in this amendment petition is extracted hereunder:-

¶51

" 1. In the plaint description of property after the

¶52

word, "( Fe;jfkpy;yhky; )" add the following, " ,jpYs;s giHa

¶53

tpy;iy tPL?1. giHa M!;bgl;lh!; ml;il tPL. ,jw;fhd tPl;L

¶54

kpd; ,izg;g[ S.C. No. 265, J}h;e;j fpzh;?1. MH;Jis fpzh;?1.

¶55

,uz;L 5 H.P. tptrha kpd; ,izg;g[fs; S.C. No. 281, 670.

¶56

,jw;fhd ,uz;L 5 H.P. kpd;nkhl;lhh;fs;. gyd;jUk; bjd;id ku';fs; 20/

¶57

giHa tpy;iy tPL kjpg;g[ ? U:/8.000-? giHa M!;bg!;lh!; ml;il tPL kjpg;g[ ? U:/10.000-? tPl;L kpd; ,izg;g[ kjpg;g[ ? U:/2.000-? J}h;e;j fpzh;?1 kjpg;g[ ? U:/10.000-? MH;Jis fpzh;?1 kjpg;g[ ? U:/15.000-? ,uz;L 5 H.P. tptrha kpd;,izg;g[fs; kjpg;g[ ? U:/10.000-? ,uz;L 5 H.P. kpd;nkhl;lhh;fs; kjpg;g[ ? U:/20.000-? 10 bjd;id ku';fs; kjpg;g[ ? U:/20.000-? bkhj;j kjpg;g[ ? U:/95.000-?

¶58

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

¶59

5/11

¶60

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶61

2. In the plaint valuation paragraph No.9

¶62

(i) In the 2nd line delete, 'Rs.3,000.00' and add in

¶63

that place, '51,500.00'

¶64

(ii) After the 9th line add,

¶65

"Value of the plaintiff for the relief of

¶66

declaration and injunction is valued under Section 25(b) of T.N.C.F. Act is 95,000/2 is Rs.47,500.00

¶67

Court fee paid there on under Section 25(b) of

¶68

T.N.C.F. Act is Rs.1,425.00"

¶69

(iii) 16th line delete the word, '3,000.00' and in

¶70

that place, 'Rs.98,000.00'

¶71

(iv) 17th line delete the word, '226.50' and add in that place, '1651.50'

¶72

3. In the valuation slip delete, delete, "Rs.3,000.00" and

¶73

add in that place, '51.500.00'.

¶74

Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously argue that

¶75

the proposed amendments will not change the cause of action and due to the

¶76

inadvertence, the details were omitted to be added and no prejudice will be

¶77

caused to the defendants, if the amendment is ordered in favour of the

¶78

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

¶79

6/11

¶80

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶81

plaintiff. To strengthen his arguments, the following judgment of the Hon'ble

¶82

Supreme Court of India in Varun Pahwa -vs- Renu Chaudhary reported in

¶83

(2019) 15 SCC 628 observed that para no. 7 as follows:-

¶84

The plaint is not properly drafted inasmuch as in the memo

¶85

of parties, the plaintiff is described as Varun Pahwa through Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. though it should have been Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Varun Pahwa. Thus, it is a case of mistake of the counsel, may be on account of lack of understanding as to how a private limited company is to sue in a suit for recovery of the amount advanced.

¶86

It is also relevant to note that on a careful perusal of the plaint in Para No. 5 of the plaint, it has been averred that the plaintiff has converted the thatched house into a tiled one.

¶87

The plaintiff's paternal grandfather Sengoda Goundar had 3 sons

¶88

namely Athappa Goundar, Muthusamy Goundar and Kalianna Goundar. The plaintiff is the legal heir of Kalianna Goundar. The 1^st defendant is the grand son of Athappa Goundar.

¶89

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

¶90

7/11

¶91

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶92

The relieves sought for in the plaint are declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction. Therefore, there may not be any limitation issues, in case, if the amendment is ordered.

¶93

There is no change of survey number and extent of the suit property. The details of the suit property have been omitted to be mentioned. It is relevant to extract the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made in case of amendments in the plaint in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal -vsNational Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in 1969 (1) SCC 869 . The Apex Court has observed as follows:-

¶94

" this Court was concerned with a matter wherein amendment

¶95

in the plaint was refused on the ground that the amendment could not take effect retrospectively and on the date of the amendment the action was barred by the law of limitation. It

¶96

was held : (SCC p. 871, para 5)

¶97

‘5. … Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The court always gives

¶98

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

¶99

8/11

¶100

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶101

leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.’

¶102

Therefore, it is a sheer omission on the part of the plaintiff to mention those details. Certainly there is no question of limitation involved and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants, if the amendment is ordered to be allowed and then the plaint schedule of property will be bereft of those particulars. In order to serve the ends of justice and in order to avoid narrow and technical issues, the order of the learned Trial Court stands set aside.

¶103

In the result, based on the above said observations and legal positions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.09.2022 made in I.A. No. 6 of 2022 in O.S. No. 381 of 2013 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. There shall be a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no

¶104

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

¶105

9/11

¶106

C.R.P.(PD). No. 1909 of 2023

¶107

order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶108

19.08.2024

¶109

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No pal To The Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.