Chinnaponnu Vs Geetha

Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.858 of 2014 in O.S.No.308 of 2013 dated 28.03.2024 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Suresh For Respondents : Mrs.R.Poonima For R.1 and R.2 R.3 – No appearance

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶14

Mrs.R.Poornima, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

CRP No.2718 of 2024

¶18

The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of their application in I.A.No.858 of 2024 for amendment of plaint, are before this Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would state that the

¶20

petitioners/plaintiffs wanted to incorporate only few averments in the plaint with regard to subsequent cancellation of power of attorney.

¶21

However, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would state

¶22

that earlier the respondents/defendants in the said suit have obtained a decree that the cancellation of power of attorney is null and void and the property has already been alienated and therefore, the request for amending the plaint was rightly rejected by the trial court.

¶23

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

Admittedly, the plaintiffs wanted to insert the following sentence in the plaint:-

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

CRP No.2718 of 2024

¶28

“ nkYk; tHf;F thjpfs; 13/07/1992 njjpapy; 1-k; gpujpthjp

¶29

bgaUf;F vGjpf;bfhLj;Js;s gth; gj;jpuj;jpid 27/03/2008 njjpapy;

¶30

Mtz vz;/132/2008 K:yk; uj;J bra;Js;shh;f;s/ nkw;go uj;J Mtz tpguk; ,e;j 1?k; gpujpthjpf;F ,e;j thjpfshy; nehpy; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ”

¶31

The proposed inclusion does not in any way alter the nature and the character of the suit and no new relief has also been sought for. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, amendment is sought for even before the trial has commenced and if the plaintiffs are permitted to insert the above said paragraphs in the plaint, the respondents/defendants will have adequate opportunity to meet the newly inserted paragraph by filing additional written statement and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents with regard to alienation, it is anyway the case of the respondents/defendants is that the property has already been alienated. Therefore, merely because the amendment is ordered by inclusion of the above paragraph, the defence set up by the respondents/defendants is also not in anyway prejudiced.

¶32

In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.858 of 2014 in O.S.No.308 of 2013 and the civil revision petition is allowed.

¶33

3/4

¶34

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

CRP No.2718 of 2024

P.B.BALAJI.,J.

sr

The trial court shall permit the amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within a period of four weeks thereafter, the respondents/defendant shall be entitled to file additional written statement.

¶39