Allowed¶11

V. Uma v. Saridha

Madras HC25 Jul 2025CRP/4859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, P.B.Balaji J., CRP.No.4859 of 2024 with CMP.No.27181 of 2024, decided 25.07.2025; Article 227; amendment of plaint; pre-trial amendment should be the rule; no new cause of action or change of character of suit; respondents did not oppose amendment; trial not commenced; reliance on LIC v. Sanjeev Builders, 2022 (16) SCC 1 (para 71.8 guidelines); O.S.No.56 of 2014; I.A.No.1 of 2024; earlier amendment I.A.No.761 of 2019; declaration of title; setting aside sale deeds; Principal Subordinate Court, Poonamallee; impugned order dated 24.10.2024 set aside; CRP allowed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.56 of 2014 dated 24.10.2024 set aside; Civil Revision Petition allowed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.27181 of 2024) closed. ¶11

V. Uma Vs Saridha — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.56 of 2014. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Since the suit sought substantial reliefs, the trial had not commenced, no new relief was sought and the respondents did not oppose the amendment, the trial Court ought to have adopted a more liberal approach and permitted the amendments to lend clarity to the pleadings and fortify the suit reliefs.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

None of the amendments sought in I.A.No.1 of 2024 altered or affected the original cause of action or the character of the suit; the trial Court's contrary findings were clearly erroneous and liable to be interfered with in revision.

¶10

Key takeaways

As far as pre-trial amendments are concerned, allowing amendment should be the rule and disallowing the application should be the exception; the trial Court's refusal was wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CIVIL REVISION PETITION (Art. 227, Constitution of India) - Amendment of plaint - Dismissal by trial Court on grounds that amendments introduced a new cause of action, changed the character of the suit, and were not sought in the earlier amendment application (I.A.No.761 of 2019) - Held: suit involved substantial reliefs; trial yet to commence; no new relief sought, amendments only lent clarity to pleadings and fortified existing reliefs; respondents filed no counter or objection; applying Supreme Court guidelines in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (16) SCC 1, prejudice to opposite party being the touchstone and pre-trial amendments ordinarily to be allowed - 'amendments should be the rule and disallowing the application should be the exception' - Findings of trial Court erroneous - Fair and decretal order dated 24.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.56 of 2014 (Principal Subordinate Court, Poonamallee) set aside - Civil Revision Petition allowed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

CRP.No.4859 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

CRP.No.4859 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

CMP.No.27181 of 2024

¶9

1.V.Uma 2.V.Vignesh 3.V.Pradeep 4.N.Munirathinammal ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Saridha 2.S.Haribabu 3.P.A.Sanjeevi Naidu ... Respondents/Defendants

¶12

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the fair and decretal order dated 24.10.2024 made in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.56 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

¶13

For Petitioners : M/s.M.Adhishree For Respondents : No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of an amendment applications are before this Court.

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

CRP.No.4859 of 2024

¶19

Heard, Ms.M.Adhishree, the learned Counsel for the revision

¶20

petitioners.

¶21

The respondents, despite service of notice in the revision have not entered appearance either in person or through Counsel.

¶22

Ms.M.Adhishree, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would state that the plaintiffs, without altering the relief that was originally sought for, wanted to lend more clarity to the plaint averments and elucidate the allegations that have been already made by seeking suitable amendments in the body of the plaint as well as in the schedule.

¶23

4.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further state that there is no change in the original character of the suit and further, the respondents also did not object to the amendments that was sought for by the plaintiffs. However, pointing out to the impugned order, the learned Counsel would state that, the Court below has erroneously found that the amendment introduces a totally new cause of action and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the amendment application.

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

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

¶26

CRP.No.4859 of 2024

¶27

I find that the trial Court has assigned one more reason namely,

¶28

the non-seeking of the said amendment in the earlier application for amendment in I.A.No.761 of 2019 and on these grounds, the petition for amendment has been dismissed.

¶29

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited reported in 2022 (16) SCC 1, wherein it was held that, all pre-trial amendments should be ordinarily allowed and trial Court should be liberal in permitting amendment of pleadings, when the amendments are sought for prior to the commencement of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and as long as the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, the amendment applications should not be dealt with by adopting a hypertechnical approach and if need be, the opposite party should always be compensated by costs. It is also been held that when the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint, by rectifying absence of material particulars in the plaint, then such amendment should be allowed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that that the facts of the present

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

CRP.No.4859 of 2024

¶33

case clearly fall within the ambit of the direction issued in Paragraph No.71.8

¶34

in the LIC case referred herein above.

¶35

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶36

The revision petitioners as plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and their right and interest in the suit properties and also for setting aside the registered documents, namely, to declare the two Sale Deeds that have been executed as between the defendants as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

¶37

Admittedly, the suit is one for seeking substantial reliefs and the trial is yet to commence. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have adopted a more liberal approach in permitting the plaintiffs to lend more clarity to the pleadings and more-so, when no new relief has been sought for and only in order to fortify the suit reliefs, the plaintiffs wanted to introduce certain amendments in the plaint. The trial Court also failed to see that the amendment petition was not even opposed by the respondents. One of the

¶38

Page 4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

CRP.No.4859 of 2024

¶41

guidelines that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated in LIC's case is to see whether any prejudice is caused to the opposite party. When the respondents have not even come forward to file any counter, objecting to the amendment application and considering the fact that trial has also not commenced, the learned Sub-Judge, Poonamallee ought to have allowed the amendment application. However, on the contrary, the trial Court has erroneously proceeded to find that the amendments sought were in the nature of changing the very character of the suit and introducing a new cause of action.

¶42

I have gone through the amendments that have been sought for in I.A.No.1 of 2024. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, none of these amendments, in any way alter or affect the original cause of action or the character of the suit as well. The findings rendered by the trial Court are clearly erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the revision. As far as pre-trial amendments, amendments should be the rule and disallowing the application should be the exception. The order of the trial Court, for refusing amendment is therefore wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

CRP.No.4859 of 2024

¶46

In fine, the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in

¶47

O.S.No.56 of 2014 dated 24.10.2024 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

25.07.2025

¶49

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order veda

¶50

To The Principal Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

¶51

Page 6 of 7

¶52

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

¶53

CRP.No.4859 of 2024