Dismissed¶36

Santhanam v. Kannan

Madras HC3 Dec 2025CRP(MD)/3666/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

plaint amendment; amendment application after 15 years; inordinate delay; incorporation of boundaries Ex.A2; inadvertent omission of boundaries; O.S.No.393 of 2010; I.A.No.10 of 2025; Article 227 revision; Principal District Munsif Thirumangalam Madurai; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; declaration and injunction suit; intention to protract proceedings; P.W1 cross-examination 25.11.2021; direction to dispose suit within six months; CRP(MD) No.3666 of 2025; CMP(MD) No.19401 of 2025

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; direction issued to the Principal District Munsif, Thirumangalam, Madurai District to dispose of O.S.No.393 of 2010 within six months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition CMP(MD) No.19401 of 2025 closed. ¶36

Santhanam Vs Kannan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be allowed and the trial Court's order dated 10.11.2025 dismissing I.A.No.10 of 2025 (plaint amendment application) set aside.

¶23

Court's answer

The amendment was sought after a lapse of 15 years from the suit of 2010, without reasons given by the petitioners; the inordinate delay defeats the petitioners' case.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

As a further ground, this Court cites the trial Court's recorded finding of fact that P.W1 was cross-examined on 25.11.2021, the suit pending nearly 15 years, and the amendment application having been filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings.

¶31

Key takeaways

For the aforesaid reasons, the Court finds no merit in the Civil Revision Petition, which accordingly stands dismissed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.11.2025 of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, dismissing I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S.No.393 of 2010 (suit of 2010 for declaration and injunction), whereby the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to incorporate four boundaries of document Ex.A2 said to have been omitted by inadvertence. N. Senthilkumar J. (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) dismissed the revision: the amendment was sought 15 years after institution of the suit without reasons, the inordinate delay defeating the petitioners' case; the trial Court had recorded a finding of fact that P.W1 was cross-examined on 25.11.2021 and that the application was filed only to protract the proceedings. Direction was issued to dispose of the suit within six months; no costs; connected CMP(MD) No.19401 of 2025 closed.

¶1

CRP(MD). No.3666 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 03.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). No.3666 of 2025 and CMP(MD) No.19401 of 2025

1.Santhanam

2.Kannan

3.Katturaja

4.Jayapal @ Gopal ... Petitioners

1.Kannan

2.Meenakshi

3.Muthulakshmi

4.Malarkodi

5.Ananthakumar ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 10.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S.No.393 of 2010 on the fie of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

CRP(MD). No.3666 of 2025

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Aravindan For R1 : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.11.2025 made in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S.No.393 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶24

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.393 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District, for declaration and injunction, in which, due to inadvertence, the four boundaries mentioned in the document, namely, Ex.A2, have not been incorporated in the schedule of property mentioned in the plaint. Hence, the petitioners have filed an application in I.A.No.10 of 2025 in O.S.No. 393 of 2010, to amend the plaint. However, the trial Court, without considering the facts, which is an inadvertent error, dismissed the amendment application. He would further submit that if the amendment

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

CRP(MD). No.3666 of 2025

¶28

is not made, the petitioners will put to irreparable loss and undue action. Therefore, he seeks interference of this Court with the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶29

3.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

¶30

for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶31

4.The suit for declaration and injunction was instituted as early as in the year 2010 and the present amendment application has been filed only in the year 2025. The petitioners, without filing an amendment petition immediately on filing the written statement, is now attempting to amend the plaint. Such amendment is being sought after a lapse of 15 years, for which, no reasons have been given by the petitioners. The inordinate delay in the present case also defeats the petitioners' case. Further, the trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that P.W1 was cross-examined on 25.11.2021 and the suit is pending for nearly 15 years and that only with an intention to protract the proceedings, the application to amend the plaint had been filed.

¶32

3/5

¶33

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

¶34

CRP(MD). No.3666 of 2025

¶35

5.For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the Civil

¶36

Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2010, there shall be a direction to the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirumangalam, Madurai District, to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶37