Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 298
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
S. Rajendran
Versus
K. Kanniah & Others
C.R.P.(PD) No.2684 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 27-01-2010
For the Petitioner:T.V. Ramanujam, Senior counsel for T.V. Krishnamachari, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1,R4 & R6, J. Sudhakaran
The court emphasized the importance of bonafide applications for amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., ensuring that they do not cause injustice to the other party or affect rights already accrued to the defendants.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Revision petition - Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. - Peethani Suryanarayana and another Vs Repaka Venakta Ramana Kishore and others, (2009)11 Supreme Court Cases 308; North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs Bhagwan Das (dead) by Lrs., (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511; Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through L.Rs. Vs S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2008(5) C.T.C. 253; D.Ramanujam Vs R.Panneerselvam reported in 2006(3) C.T.C. 27; Vidyabai and others Vs Padmalatha and another, (2009)2 Supreme Court cases 409
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a petition seeking permission to amend the plaint, which was dismissed by the trial court. The suit involved a declaration that certain deeds and documents were null and void, and an order of permanent injunction was sought against the defendants. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction for demolition of illegal construction by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the plaintiff's amendment petition was filed belatedly and not maintainable as per the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the amendment petition could not be filed before the commencement of trial despite due diligence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff's petition seeking amendment of the pleadings was maintainable under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. after the trial had commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in various Supreme Court cases to determine the maintainability of the amendment petition, emphasizing the need for bonafide applications that do not cause injustice to the other party and do not affect rights already accrued to the defendants.
Final Decision: The Civil revision petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld.
The plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court.
2. The plaintiff filed a petition seeking permission to amend the plaint as per the particulars furnished in the petition. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court. Hence, the present Civil Revision petition filed by the plaintiff.
3. The suit is one for declaration that the deed of revocation dated 20.02.1998 executed by the third defendant is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. A further declaration has also been sought for by the plaintiff that the Power of Attorney dated 20.02.1998 executed by the third defendant in favour of the fourth defendant, the sale deed dated 25.03.1998 executed by the fourth defendant in favour of the fifth defendant and the Power of Attorney dated 04.01.1999 executed by the fifth defendant in favour of the sixth defendant are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. An order of permanent injunction has also been sought for as against the first defendant and the defendants 3 to 6 to restrain them from dealing with the suit property.
4. The plaintiff having alleged in the petition that the first defendant along with the defendants 3 to 6 have illegally and unlawfully trespassed into the suit property and made illegal constriction over there during pendency of the suit, sought to introduce a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1, 3 to 6 to demolish and remove all kinds of encroachments and illegal construction put up by them over the suit property.
5. The said petition was resisted by the defendants 1, 4 to 6 on the ground that the amendment petition filed belatedly is not maintainable as per the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Though the defendants have specifically brought to the notice of the plaintiff about the construction they had already put up in the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.2672 of 2007, the plaintiff without exercising any diligence has come out with the petition seeking amendment after commencement of trial quite against the spirit of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Alleging that much prejudice will be caused if such an amendment at this distance of time is permitted, the respondents herein seek for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. Thetrial court in its elaborate order having discussed the fact that the plaintiff was specifically brought to his notice long prior to the commencement of the trial about the construction put up by the respondents, has observed that with the petition for amendment has been filed belatedly. Referring to the Proviso found under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., the trial court held that the revision petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the petition when he had knowledge about the building constructed in the suit property by the respondents long prior to the commencement of the trial.
7. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the written statement itself was filed only on 211. 2008. The attempt made by the respondents to obtain electricity service connection was brought to the notice of the trial court by way of filing necessary petition seeking to restrain them from getting service connection to the construction put up by them in the suit property. Thereafter, the present petition was filed of course after the trial commenced in the month of July 2009 seeking amendment by the plaintiff introducing a prayer for mandatory injunction. It is submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if such an amendment is allowed and no injustice will also be caused to the respondents if the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is permitted. It is his further submission that dismissal of the petition seeking a prayer for amendment would definitely lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents drawing the attention of this court specifically to the proviso found under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. would submit tha
