Dismissed¶58

Vanjiappan v. Sathiyabama

Madras HC17 Jul 2026CRP/1179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; decided 17.07.2026; C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024; Vanjiappan v. Sathiyabama; amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; no cause of action pleaded; adjoining property purchased during pendency under sale deed dated 27.11.2018; O.S. Nos. 213 & 425 of 2017; District Munsif Dharapuram, Tiruppur District; Article 227 revision; dismissal upheld; liberty to file fresh suit; separate cause of action for newly acquired property.

What did the court decide?

All three civil revision petitions dismissed as finding no merit; petitioner/plaintiff granted liberty to file a fresh suit against the respondent/defendant pleading proper cause of action in respect of the property purchased under the sale deed dated 27.11.2018; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶58

Vanjiappan Vs Sathiyabama — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil revision petitions under Article 227 challenging the Trial Court's dismissal of the amendment applications (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) could succeed where no cause of action was pleaded for the proposed amendments concerning the adjoining property purchased during the pendency of the suits.

¶39

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity in the Trial Court's dismissal of the amendment applications: the suits were originally confined to plaint schedule property and the cause of action arose only in respect thereof; the adjoining property purchased under the sale deed dated 27.11.2018 is a subsequent development for which no cause of action was pleaded in the original plaints; any hindrance by the defendant regarding the newly purchased adjoining property is a separate cause of action; and the affidavits supporting I.A. Nos. 242, 245 A and 245 of 2019 pleaded no cause of action, so the Trial Court rightly dismissed them.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Although an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must ordinarily be dealt with liberally, where no cause of action has been pleaded by the petitioner against the respondent/defendant in all three applications, the question of treating those applications liberally does not arise in these civil revision petitions.

¶51

Key takeaways

The decisions relied upon by the petitioner's counsel have no bearing on the facts of the instant case, as those decisions deal with inadvertent mistakes and with how an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is generally decided; they therefore do not assist the petitioner here.ratio¶50
Since the adjoining property was purchased under the sale deed dated 27.11.2018, i.e., subsequent to the filing of the suits, the petitioner/plaintiff is granted liberty to file a fresh suit against the respondent/defendant pleading proper cause of action.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024) against dismissal by the District Munsif, Dharapuram of amendment applications (Order VI Rule 17 CPC): plaintiff sought amendment of the plaints in O.S. Nos. 213 & 425 of 2017 and of the petition in I.A. No. 58 of 2018 (re-issuance of Advocate Commissioner's warrant) to cover an adjoining property purchased under a sale deed dated 27.11.2018 during the pendency of the suits. High Court (Abdul Quddhose J.) upheld dismissal: the original cause of action related only to the plaint schedule property; acquisition of the adjoining property was a subsequent development constituting a separate cause of action; and no cause of action was pleaded in any of the three supporting affidavits. Though amendment applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are ordinarily dealt with liberally, the liberal approach was inapplicable absent any pleaded cause of action; precedents cited by the petitioner dealt with inadvertent mistakes and had no bearing. Revisions dismissed with liberty to file a fresh suit pleading proper cause of action; connected miscellaneous petitions (C.M.P. Nos. 6082 & 6087 of 2024) closed.

¶1

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶7

¶8

C.M.P. Nos. 6082 & 6087 of 2024

¶9

Vanjiappan ..Petitioner in all the CRPs

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Sathiyabama ..Respondent in all the CRPs

¶12

Prayer in C.R.P. No. 1179 of 2024 : Civil Revision Petition filed under

¶13

Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 21.09.2023 passed in IA. No. 242 of 2019 in O.S. No. 213 of

¶14

2017 by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶15

Prayer in C.R.P. No. 1180 of 2024 : Civil Revision Petition filed under

¶16

Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 13.06.2023 passed in IA. No. 245 A of 2019 in O.S. No. 425 of

¶17

1\6

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶20

2017 by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶21

Prayer in C.R.P. No. 1520 of 2024 : Civil Revision Petition filed under

¶22

Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 13.06.2023 passed in IA. No. 245 of 2019 in I.A. No. 58 of 2018 in O.S. No. 425 of 2017 by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶23

For Petitioner in all CRPs :: Mr.P. Navaneethakrishnan For Respondent in all CRPs :: Mr.R.N. Amarnath

¶24

COMMON ORDER

¶25

C.R.P. No. 1179 of 2024 has been filed challenging the

¶26

impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed in IA. No. 242 of 2019 in O.S. No. 213 of 2017 by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶27

C.R.P. No. 1180 of 2024 has been filed challenging the

¶28

impugned order dated 13.06.2023 passed in IA. No. 245 A of 2019 in O.S. No. 425 of 2017 by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶29

2\6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶32

C.R.P. No. 1520 of 2024 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 passed in IA. No. 245 of 2019 in I.A. No. 58 of 2018 in in O.S. No. 425 of 2017 by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶33

By the aforesaid orders, the applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in both the suits in O.S. Nos.213 & 425 of 2017 seeking amendment of the plaints in the said suits (by way of I.A. Nos.242 & 245A of 2019 respectively) as well as amendment of the petition in I.A. No. 58 of 2018 in O.S. No. 425 of 2017 (by way of I.A. No. 245 of 2019) have been dismissed.

¶34

Subsequent to the filing of the suits in O.S. Nos.213 and 425 of 2017, the petitioner/plaintiff had purchased the adjoining property under a sale deed dated 27.11.2018. In view of the same, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 242 of 2019 seeking amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 213 of 2017, I.A. No. 245 A of 2019 seeking amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 425 of 2017 and I.A. No. 245 of 2019 seeking amendment of the petition in I.A. No. 58 of 2018, which was filed for re-issuance of Advocate

¶35

3\6

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶38

Commissioner’s warrant to measure the suit properties along with the assistance of a surveyor in O.S. No. 425 of 2017. The Trial Court, by the orders under challenge, dismissed the aforesaid I.As on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not mentioned any cause of action for the proposed amendments in the affidavit filed in support of the respective I.A.s.

¶39

This Court does not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the Trial Court for dismissing the petitioner’s applications for the following reasons:

¶40

(i) The respective suits were filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, at the first instance, in respect of a schedule of property disclosed in the plaint schedule in the respective suits;

¶41

(ii) The cause of action for the respective suits arose only in respect of the plaint schedule property concerned in the respective suits;

¶42

(iii) The purchase of the adjoining property by the petitioner/plaintiff under the sale deed dated 27.11.2018 is a subsequent development for which the cause of action was not pleaded in the original plaint in the respective suits by the petitioner/plaintiff;

¶43

(iv) If the respondent/defendant is causing hindrance to the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the adjoining property purchased

¶44

4\6

¶45

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

¶46

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶47

by him under the sale deed dated 27.11.2018, then it is a separate cause of action;

¶48

(v) Further, in the affidavit filed in support of the respective I.A.s namley, I.A. Nos. 242, 245 A and 245 of 2019, forming the subject matter of these civil revision petitions, the cause of action for filing the said applications has not been pleaded; and

¶49

(vi) The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications by holding that no cause of action has been pleaded by the petitioner against the respondent/defendant in the aforesaid I.As with regard to the property purchased by the petitioner during the pendency of the suits under the sale deed dated 27.11.2018.

¶50

As far as the decisions relied upon by the learned

¶51

counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they have no bearing to the facts of the instant case as those decisions deal with inadvertent mistakes committed by the petitioner and as to how the Court will have to decide an application seeking for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Though an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC will have to be dealt with liberally, when no cause of action has been pleaded by the petitioner against the respondent/defendant in all the three applications filed under Order VI

¶52

5\6

¶53

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

¶54

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶55

¶56

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.

¶57

Rule 17 CPC, the question of whether this Court will have to treat those applications liberally or not does not arise in these civil revision petitions.

¶58

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the civil revision petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. However, since the property purchased by the petitioner under the sale deed dated 27.11.2018 is subsequent to the filing of the suits, the petitioner/plaintiff is granted liberty to file a fresh suit against the respondent/defendant by pleading proper cause of action. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

17.07.2026

The District Munsif Court, Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.

¶63

C.R.P. Nos. 1179, 1180 & 1520 of 2024

¶64

6\6

¶65

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