Allowed¶32

N.R.Karthikeyan v. Kiruthiga

Madras HC27 Jan 2026CRP/3790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; recovery of possession; encroachment during pendency of suit; subsequent cause of action arising after filing of suit; multiplicity of proceedings; additional written statement; non-availability of cause of action; Civil Revision Petition under Article 227; Madras High Court; IV Additional District Munsif Salem; O.S.No.14 of 2016; sale agreement and will declared null and void.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2016 set aside; respondents at liberty to file an additional written statement raising all defences, including non-availability of cause of action; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.20740 of 2024) closed; no costs. ¶32

N.R.Karthikeyan Vs Kiruthiga — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioner's application to amend the plaint so as to include a prayer for recovery of possession of a 300 sq.ft. portion of the suit property should be set aside.

¶23

Court's answer

While considering an amendment application, the court cannot go into the merits of the new prayer sought, including whether the cause of action for recovery of possession has been made out; that question is for the Trial Court to decide on the evidence led by the parties.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Even if the amendment application is dismissed, the petitioner remains entitled to file a separate suit for relief of recovery of possession based on the alleged subsequent cause of action that came into existence after the filing of the suit.

¶31

Key takeaways

In order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment application is allowed so that all disputes between the parties can be adjudicated in a single proceeding.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (S. Sounthar J.), by order dated 27.01.2026, allowed C.R.P.No.3790 of 2024 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the order dated 03.04.2024 of the IV Additional District Munsif, Salem, dismissing I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2016, wherein the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to add a prayer for recovery of possession of a 300 sq.ft. portion of the suit property allegedly encroached upon by the defendants during the pendency of the suit. The Court held that while considering an amendment application it cannot examine the merits of the new prayer, including whether the cause of action for recovery of possession is made out, that being for the Trial Court on evidence; that even absent amendment the petitioner could file a separate suit on the subsequent cause of action; and that allowing the amendment prevents multiplicity of proceedings by enabling adjudication of all disputes in a single proceeding. Respondents were left free to file an additional written statement raising all defences, including non-availability of cause of action. Connected C.M.P.No.20740 of 2024 closed; no costs.

¶1

C.R.P.No.3790 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 27.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.No.3790 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.No.20740 of 2024

N.R.Karthikeyan

…. Petitioner

1.Kiruthiga

2.Bhuvaneshwari

3.Lakshmipriya

…. Respondents

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif at Salem, dated 03.04.2024 and to set aside the same.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Vijayakumar For R1 : No appearance For R2 & R3 : Mr.N.Umapathi

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint.

¶20

1/4

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P.No.3790 of 2024

¶23

The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking a declaration that the Sale Agreement dated 22.11.2012 and Will dated 29.05.2013 are null and void. Pending suit, the petitioner filed an instant application seeking amendment of the plaint to include the prayer for recovery of possession of a portion of the suit property to an extent of 300 sq.ft. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending suit, the defendants encroached a portion of the suit property to an extent of 300 sq.ft. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the above amendment application and the said application was erroneously dismissed by the Trial Court. Further, he would submit that allowing the application is absolutely necessary to decide all the controversies involved in the suit.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the petitioner has claimed that the suit property was encroached in the year 2020, in the proof affidavit filed by the petitioner on 20.12.2021, he has not mentioned any encroachment. It is further stated in the legal notice issued by the petitioner dated 24.04.2022, there was no mention about the alleged encroachment made by the defendants in the year 2020.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

C.R.P.No.3790 of 2024

¶30

The specific case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the

¶31

suit, a portion of the suit property was encroached by the defendants. While considering the amendment application, this Court cannot go into the merits of the new prayer sought, viz., whether the cause of action for recovery of possession has been made out by the petitioner or not as the same has to be decided by the Trial Court based on the evidence to be let in by the parties. Even after amendment application is dismissed, the petitioner is entitled to file a separate suit for relief of recovery of possession based on the alleged subsequent cause of action which came into existence after the filing of the suit. Therefore, in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, this Court feels it is better to allow the amendment application so that all the disputes between parties can be adjudicated in a single proceeding.

¶32

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.14 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif, Salem. The respondents are at liberty to file an additional written statement raising all their defences, including non availability of the cause of action. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

27.01.2026

¶34

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Lpp

¶35

3/4

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.No.3790 of 2024

¶38

S.SOUNTHAR.J.