C.R.P. (PD) No. 1628 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015. Case: N. Gangammal Vs Rajeswari and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberC.R.P. (PD) No. 1628 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: P. Valliappan, Adv. and For Respondents: C.R. Rukmani, Adv.
JudgesM. Duraiswamy, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VI Rule 17; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 40
Judgement DateMarch 28, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

M. Duraiswamy, J.

  1. Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A. No. 1828 of 2014 in O.S. No. 260 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

  2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 260 of 2009 for declaration, mandatory injunction, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement and additional written statement and are contesting the suit.

  3. Thereafter, when the suit was taken up for trial, the plaintiff took out an application in I.A. No. 1828 of 2014 under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by amending the schedule of property in the plaint.

    3.1 In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the plaintiff has stated that when the Advocate Commissioner visited the suit property, the Commissioner found further illegal encroachment by putting up superstructure in the nature of toilet and bath room. Since the Commissioner has filed his report stating about the further illegal encroachment, the plaintiff has filed the application seeking for amendment of the schedule of property in the plaint.

  4. The defendants filed their counter disputing the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application wherein they have stated that when the case was posed for trial, the plaintiff filed an application seeking for amendment of the Survey Number as 113/12 in the place of Survey No. 113/1A2 and that even at that time, she did not choose to amend the extent from 0.1 cent to 18.6 cent, which is the extent available in Survey No. 113/12. Now the plaintiff has filed the second application seeking for amendment of the plaint by amending the schedule of property. Further, the defendants have stated that the present application has been filed only after the cross examination of P.W.1, who has made vital admissions in favour of the defendants.

  5. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, dismissed the application.

  6. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

  7. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following judgments:-

    "(i) 2012 (11) SCC 341 (Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as follows:-

    11) The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT