Allowed¶56

Arihantgothi v. S.Devan

Madras HC28 Jan 2026CRP/4348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; C.R.P. No.4348 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.22901 of 2022; R. Sakthivel, J.; order pronounced 28/01/2026; Article 227 Constitution of India; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; amendment of written statement; post-trial amendment; typographical error in date of payment; Ex-B.3 receipt dated August 23, 2007; rejoinder liberty; amendment petition allowed; Trial Court order set aside; O.S.No.160 of 2017; Additional Subordinate Court, Ponneri; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; the Dismissal Order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2022 set aside and I.A.No.2 of 2022 (amendment petition) allowed; no order as to costs; connected C.M.P. No.22901 of 2022 closed. ¶56

Arihantgothi Vs S.Devan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the 2nd Defendant's petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the date in Paragraph No.13 of the written statement, on the ground that it was a post-trial amendment which cannot be allowed and would delay the proceedings.

¶36

Court's answer

The amendment sought by the 2nd Defendant — correcting in Paragraph No.13 of the written statement the date of payment from August 20, 2007 to August 23, 2007, in tune with Ex-B.3 receipt — is a mere typographical error and an inconsequential amendment.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Although the amendment sought is a post-trial amendment, it would not alter the character or nature of the suit, nor would it cause any significant delay; the Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment petition but failed to do so.

¶13

Key takeaways

The plaintiff is at liberty to file a rejoinder after the amendment is made, if he so desires, or is advised, as per law.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — Amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Post-trial amendment sought by 2nd Defendant to correct a typographical error in Paragraph No.13 of the written statement, changing the date of payment from August 20, 2007 to August 23, 2007 in tune with Ex-B.3 receipt — Trial Court (Additional Subordinate Court, Ponneri) dismissed I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.160 of 2017 holding it to be a post-trial amendment which cannot be allowed and would delay proceedings — Held: the amendment is a mere typographical error and inconsequential; although post-trial, it would not alter the character or nature of the suit nor cause any significant delay; the Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment petition; plaintiff at liberty to file a rejoinder after the amendment — Civil Revision Petition allowed; Dismissal Order set aside; I.A.No.2 of 2022 allowed; no order as to costs; connected C.M.P. closed (R. Sakthivel, J.).

¶1

2026:MHC:330

¶2

C.R.P.NO.4348 OF 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

ORDER RESERVED ON : 16 / 12 / 2025

¶5

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 28 / 01 / 2026

¶6

CORAM :

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶8

C.R.P. NO.4348 OF 2022

¶9

AND

¶10

C.M.P. NO.22901 OF 2022

¶11

ArihantGothi No.144, Kalathipillai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. … Petitioner/Petitioner/ 2nd Defendant

¶12

Vs.

¶13

S.Devan, No.80, Kumarasiralapakkam Village, Devathanam Post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. … Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated October 11, 2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.160 of 2017 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Ponneri.

¶15

Page No.1 of 8

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P.NO.4348 OF 2022

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jaya Suriya for Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan For Respondent : Mr.R.Krishnasamy

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Dismissal Order passed in a petition filed by the Petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for short) in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.160 of 2017 on the file of 'the Additional Subordinate Court,

¶21

Ponneri' [hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'].

¶22

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the 2 nd Defendant in the Original Suit in O.S.No.160 of 2017. The Respondent herein is the Plaintiff therein.For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

¶23

3. The Plaintiff has filed the Original Suit seeking declaration that the Registered Sale Agreement dated August 03, 2007 in favour of the 2 nd Defendant is null and void; declaration that the Registered Power of Attorney Deed dated August 03, 2007 in favour of 3 rd Defendant is null and void; declaration that the Sale Deed dated June 23, 2014 executed by

¶24

Page No.2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.NO.4348 OF 2022

¶27

the 3 rd

¶28

the 3 rd Defendant as Power Agent of the Plaintiff in favour of the 2 nd Defendant is null and void; and also permanent injunction against the Defendants.

¶29

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the 1 st Defendant for which the Plaintiff was asked to execute loan documents in favour of the 1 st Defendant only as a security, for which he executed the aforesaid Sale Agreement dated August 03, 2007 and Power of Attorney dated August 03, 2007. Contrary to the intention of the parties, pursuant to the Power of Attorney Deed, a Sale Deed dated June 23, 2014 was created. Hence, he filed the Suit seeking reliefs as mentioned above.

¶30

5. The 2 nd Defendant filed a Written Statement and the same was adopted by the 1 st Defendant. In the Written Statement, the 2 nd Defendant stated that the Plaintiff, one T.Parthasarathi and one P.Suresh offered an extent of 0.06.5 hectares for sale in Survey No.24/2 of Kumarasirulapakkam Village. After some negotiation, the registered Sale Agreement dated August 03, 2007 was entered into between the Plaintiff, T.Parthasarathi and P.Suresh as vendors and on the other hand, the 2 nd Defendant as purchaser. Further, the Plaintiffs and the two others

¶31

Page No.3 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.NO.4348 OF 2022

¶34

executed a registered Power of Attorney Deed in favour of the 3 rd Defendant. Subsequently, on August 23, 2007, the 2 nd Defendant paid the Plaintiff and two others, the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) and they were also issued receipts for the same. Subsequent to the Power of Attorney Deed, the Power Agent / 3 rd Defendant executed a Sale Deed dated June 23, 2014 in favour of the 2 nd Defendant in respect of the Suit Properties. The 2 nd Defendant has mutated revenue records also. Stating so, they prayed to dismiss the Suit.

¶35

6. The trial commenced in the Suit and the Plaintiff's side evidence closed and cross examination of D.W-1 was completed. When the case was posted for Defendant's side further evidence, the 2 nd Defendant filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC praying to amend the date in Paragraph No.13 of his written statement.

¶36

7. The Trial Court after hearing both sides' concluded that the amendment that was sought is a post-trial amendment and the same cannot be allowed; allowing the amendment petition will delay the proceedings and accordingly dismissed the Interlocutory Application.

¶37

Page No.4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.NO.4348 OF 2022

¶40

8. Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order, Petitioner therein / 2 nd Defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶41

9. Mr.S.Jaya Suriya, learned Counsel representing Mr.N.R.Anantha

¶42

Rama Krishnan, learned Counsel on record for the revision petitioner / petitioner / 2 nd defendant submitted that the amendment sought for by the 2nd Defendant was to correct an inconsequential typographical error. The amendment was to correct the date of a document in the written statement as August 23, 2007, which is erroneously mentioned as August 20, 2007. Moreover, the said document has been marked as Ex-B.3 before the Trial Court in the Original Suit and in fact, the 2 nd Defendant has mentioned the correct date of the document (August 23, 2007) in the notices as well as in the proof affidavit; only in the written statement a typographical error crept in and it has been wrongly mentioned as August 20, 2007. The proposed amendment does not alter the cause of action or the nature / scope of the Suit in any manner. The Trial Court failed to understand the nature of the amendment and mechanically dismissed the Amendment Petition. The Dismissal Order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the Dismissal Order and allow the Amendment Petition.

¶43

Page No.5 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

C.R.P.NO.4348 OF 2022

¶46

10. Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned Counsel for the respondent /

¶47

respondent / plaintiff submitted that the amendment sought for by the 2 nd Defendant is a post-trial amendment which cannot be permitted. The Amendment Petition was filed when the plaintiff side evidence was closed, D.W.1's cross examination was over and the matter was posted for further evidence on the side of the Defendants. The Amendment Petition has been filed with an ulterior motive to prolong the litigation by causing delay in the proceedings. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition and sustian the Order of the Trial Court.

¶48

11. This Court has heard on either side and perused the Plaint, Written Statement as well as the Petition in I.A.No.2 of 2022 and the Affidavit filed in support thereof.

¶49

12. The amendment sought for by the 2 nd Defendant is to amend the date in Paragraph No.13 of the Written Statement, which is a mere typographical error. In the Written Statement, it has been pleaded that on August 20, 2007, the Defendant had paid the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The receipt for the same has been marked as Ex-B.3. ExB.3 - Receipt is dated August 23, 2007. Now, the Defendants want to amend the said date to August 23, 2007, in tune with Ex-B.3 - Receipt.

¶50

Page No.6 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

C.R.P.NO.4348 OF 2022

¶53

The amendment is an inconsequential one. Anyways, the plaintiff is at

¶54

liberty to file a rejoinder after the amendment is made, if he so desires, or advised, as per law.

¶55

13. This Court is of the view that although the amendment sought is a post-trial amendment, it would not alter the character or nature of the suit, nor it would cause any significant delay. Consequently, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment petition, but failed to do so. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition, set aside the Order passed by the Trial Court, and consequently allow I.A. No. 2 of 2022.

¶56

14. Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Dismissal Order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2022 is set aside and I.A.No.2 of 2022 is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶57

28 / 01 /2026

¶58