Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 1455
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Sri Ramakrishna Dhabovanam - Appellant
Versus
Kasi Durai - Respondents
C.R.P.No.1735 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.12768 of 2003
Decided On : 29 August 2005
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in allowing the Amendment of Pleadings, especially in cases where inadvertent mistakes needed correction.
Headnote:
Amendment Application - Property Dispute - Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff Trust filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction against the Defendant to restrain interference with the possession and enjoyment of the School Property. The Defendant claimed right in the Suit Property through his grandfather and contested the Plaintiff's claim.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the proposed Amendment did not introduce a new case or alter the nature of the Suit. The Amendment sought to correct an innocuous mistake in the Boundary Description of the Plaint Schedule Property.
Issues: The main issues were whether the proposed Amendment changed the Description of the Property and whether the lower Court was right in dismissing the Amendment Application filed after the commencement of the Trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the proposed Amendment did not introduce a new case or alter the nature of the Suit. It also emphasized the need for a liberal approach in allowing the Amendment of Pleadings, especially in cases where inadvertent mistakes needed correction.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order and directing the Trial Court to afford an opportunity to the Plaintiff to carry out the Amendment in the Plaint and the Rough Plan, and to dispose of the Suit in accordance with the law expeditiously.
(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C against the order dated 06.06.2003 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Valliyur in I.A.No.562 of 2003 in O.S.No.253 of 1996, as stated therein.)
This Revision Petition is directed against the order of dismissal of the Amendment Application dated 06.06.2003 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Valliyur made in I.A.No.562 of 2003 in O.S.No.253 of 1996. The Plaintiff – Sri Ramakrishna Dhabovanam is the Revision Petitioner.
2. O.S.No.253 of 1996:- The Plaintiff is a Trust having its Head Office at Thiruparai Thurai. The Plaintiff Trust runs several Educational Institutions for the benefit of poor people. In Disayanvilai Village, the Plaintiff Trust had started an Educational Institution in 1983. After upgradation of the School as a High School, the School required open space for Play Ground. For the purpose of Play Ground, Western Side of the Property was purchased by the Plaintiff Trust by the Sale Deed dated 22.12.1994. The Defendant owns a small piece of land on the West of the Plaint Schedule and on the South Western Corner of the land there is tomb. Since the School Play Ground is a sprawling open space either the Children enter into the land or the Cattle from the Western Side enter into the School area, causing interference to the school children. The Land was surveyed on 31.12.1994. At that time, the Defendant made a strange claim of right over the Suit Property and threatened to interfere with the possession of the Suit Property by the Plaintiff Trust. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from in any way interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property.
3. Denying the allegations in the Plaint, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement interalia contending that the Plaint Schedule property belongs to the Defendant. In the Suit Property, the Defendant's Grandfather has been buried and a cemetry has been put up. Previously Survey Number of the Plaint Schedule Property is S.No.327 – 1.15 acres which has been divided into Sub Divisions 327/5N consisting of 62 cents which belonged to Yesuvadian and Asirvatham. The said Asirvatham had 25 cents on the Eastern portion and Yesuvadian had 37 cents on the Western portion. The Defendant claims right in the Suit Property through Yesuvadian. Recognising the right and title of Heirs of Yesuvadian, in the said 37 cents, Joint Patta had also been issued. The Plaintiff School has no right over the Suit Property and hence not entitled for the Permanent Injunction.
4. Trial commenced. Parties adduced evidence. The case was posted for Judgment on 04.04.2003. The case was suo motu reopened and the Court is said to have observed in the Open Court that the Description of the Plaint Schedule Property and that of the Rough Plan do not tally. The case was posted for Clarification on 10.04.2003. Later, on 16.04.2003, I.A.No.562 of 2003 – Amendment Application was filed. According to the Plaintiff, in the Rough Plan produced along with the Plaint, the Western Boundary and Southern Boundary have been wrongly typed and in the Plaint Schedule Property, the Description of the Boundaries has been wrongly described. The mistake is not wilful. The proposed Amendment would not in any way change the cause of action or the subject matter of the dispute and the Plaintiff's School prayed for Amendment of the Boundary description both in the Plaint Schedule and also in the Rough Plan filed along with the Plaint.
5. Filing elaborate Counter Statement, the Defendant resisted the Application. Pointing out the stage in which the Amendment application was filed, the Maintainability of the Application was also challenged. According to the Defendant, the Suit was filed by President – Srimath Nithyanandaswami by his Power Agent – Swami Sridivyananda. While so, the Affidavit in I.A.No.562 of 2003 has been filed by P.W.2 – Paulsamy, who has got nothing t
