Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Rajagopal (Deceased) and Others – Petitioners
Versus
K. Balakumaran and Another – Respondents
C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 1543, 1544 of 2018, C.M.P. No. 8244 of 2018
Decided On : 05-04-2019
Amendment - Civil Revision Petitions - O.S. No. 6268 of 2010 - [Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] - The court discussed the amendments sought by the plaintiff in the B-Schedule property and the grounds for allowing the amendments. The key legal provision discussed was Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the power of the court to allow amendments to pleadings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction. The plaintiff subsequently filed multiple amendment applications to amend the B-Schedule property, leading to a challenge by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's conduct in repeatedly filing amendment applications was an abuse of the court process and a dilatory tactic to delay the passing of judgment. The court held that the amendments were frivolous and set them aside.
Issues: The issues involved the repeated filing of amendment applications by the plaintiff and the grounds for allowing such amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that allowing repeated frivolous amendments would lead to abuse of the legal process and delay the passing of judgment, and therefore set aside the amendments.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, and the amendment applications were set aside. No costs were awarded.
P.T. ASHA, J.
1. The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the post trial amendment which have been allowed by the learned XII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. With a view to brevity and clarity the facts have been stated in a nutshell.
2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit O.S. No. 6268 of 2010 on the file of the learned XII Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction in the B-Schedule property without an approved building plan and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the offending structure which has been put up without following the building rules. The B-Schedule property in the original plaint has been described as follows:
Chennai District Chennai Central Registration District Ashok Nagar Sub Registration District Mambalam Guindy Taluk Kodampakkam Village Block 113 T.S. No. 125 in this, M.G.R. Nagar Scheme Thiru Vi.ka Street Plot No. 410, 411 Door No. 5A and 5B measuring approximately 1,500 Sq. ft bounded on the East and south by third parties property and on the west by Thiru. Vi. Ka Street.
3. Thereafter, the plaintiff had come forward with an amendment petition in I.A. No. 14111 of 2014 to amend the B-Schedule property with reference to T.S. Number and Door number. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition the plaintiff has stated that the T.S. Number and door number had been wrongly mentioned in B-Schedule of the plaint and this was noticed only when he perused the plaint, the error which according to him was only a typographical one.
4. Despite the opposition by the defendants the said petition was allowed by an order dated 25.06.2017. This order was taken up on challenge in C.R.P. No. 379 of 2016 and was dismissed by an order dated 22.03.2019.
5. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs have come forward with yet another application in I.A. No. 9418 of 2017, to amend the B-Schedule property once again when the matter was reserved for the Judgment. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition he would state that it was only now that he had noticed that the plot numbers, boundaries, linear measurement and extent was not furnished fully (in fact the suit schedule property has been wrongly mentioned). Therefore, he sought to amend the application. The property that was now sought to be substituted in the original B-Schedule is as follows:
Chennai District, Chennai Central registration District, Ashok Nagar Sub-Registration District, Mambalam Guindy Taluk, Kodambakkam Village, Block No. 113, T.S. No. 127, in MGR Nagar Scheme, Thiru. Vi. Ka Street, Plot No. 410, door No. 5, bounded on the north by: Plot No. 409, South by: Plot No. 411, East by Plot No. 470 and 468 and West by Thiru. Vi. Ka. Street measuring East West on the northern side 11.4 metre Southern side 11.4 metre, North to South on the Easter side 6.2 metre, and western side 6.2 metre admeasuring 70.50 sq. metre together with building there on in door No. 5” instead of Chennai District, Chennai Central registration
6. The detailed counter has been filed by the revision petitioners wherein they have contended that the application is nothing but an abuse of process of Court particularly when the plaintiff has come forward with the case of mandatory injunction. While this application was pending the Court had suo moto re-opened the case for clarification and when the matter was posted for clarification the plaintiff have come forward with yet another application in I.A. No. 202 of 2018 to once again amend the plaint with reference to the B-Schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the plaintiff would submit that he had omitted to pray as follows, “In the event of the defendants not demolishing the 4th defendant should demolish the offending structure.
7. This was the yet another amendment that he sought to introduce after the suit was filed as early as in the year 2010. The two
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
