Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
V.S. Ranganayaki and others – Petitioners
Vs.
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Coimbatore and others – Respondents
C.R.P.(PD)No.3929 of 2010 and M.P.1 of 2010
Decided On : 13-06-2017
Amendment - Civil Procedure - The court dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint, ruling that the amendment was sought after the commencement of the trial and based on a report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was not a valid reason for amending the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction. During the trial, they filed an application for amendment of the plaint to include details of encroachment by the defendants. The court dismissed the application for amendment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for amendment was filed after the commencement of the trial and based on a report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was not a valid reason for amending the plaint. The court concluded that there was no illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the trial judge's order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application for amendment of the plaint, filed after the commencement of the trial and based on a report of the Advocate Commissioner, was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 151 of CPC to determine the validity of the application for amendment. It ruled that the application for amendment should have been filed at an earlier stage and that the reason for amendment based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner was not valid.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the court held that there was no illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the trial judge's order.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 15.07.2010 made in I.A.No.634 of 2010 in O.S.No.415 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.415 of 2005. The petitioners have filed the suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction. The respondents have filed their written statement and are contesting the suit.
3. The trial commenced. On the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 was examined and P.W.1 was partly cross examined, At that stage, the petitioners filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.634 of 2010 for amendment of the plaint stating that the respondents 4 to 7 have encroached 3½ cents in the petitioners' property and put up a superstructure. The petitioners have stated that they have mentioned about the encroachment in the plaint and did not mention the extent of the encroachment and prayed for amendment. The respondents 4 to 7 denied and opposed the above said application and submitted that they have not encroached the property belonging the petitioners. The property belongs to the Temple and there is no cart track and no separate pathway to the land of the petitioners.
4. The learned Judge considering the averments contained in the affidavit and counter affidavit and materials on record, dismissed the application.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. From the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners have filed the application for amendment of the plaint after commencement of the trial and as per order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 of CPC, only if the party seeks amendment and file an application for amendment at earlier stage, then an application for amendment could be ordered. But, in the present case, the petitioners have not filed the application earlier. Further, it is seen that the application filed for amendment of the plaint is only on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner and such reason is not valid for amending the plaint. Hence the learned Judge dismissed the application.
7. The learned Judge, considering all the materials available on record, dismissed the application by giving cogent and valid reasons. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned trial Judge, dated 15.07.2010. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
