Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
S. Saravana Muthu & Others - Petitioner
Versus
Thiruthani Arulmighu Murugan Educational Trust, Represented by V. Murthy, Founder President Chairman & Managing Trustee & Others - Respondent
CRP(PD). No. 1852 of 2020 & CMP. No. 11109 of 2020
Decided On : 12-02-2021
Amendment - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - [Amendment] - [Civil Procedure Code] - [Order 6 Rule 17]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. After completion of trial, an application for amendment of the prayer in the plaint was filed. The Trial Court allowed the amendment in part, leading to the filing of a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) by the defendants challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and the principles governing the grant of amendments. It considered the necessity, bona fides, prejudice to the other party, and the nature of the case. The Court found that the first amendment was necessary and bonafide, and the third amendment was allowed to avoid future issues. The second amendment, not challenged by the plaintiffs, was not considered.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendments sought were imperative for proper adjudication and whether they caused prejudice to the other party.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that amendments can be allowed if necessary for deciding the rights of the parties, and if they are bonafide and relevant. It also emphasized that amendments should not cause prejudice that cannot be compensated, and refusing amendments should not lead to injustice or multiple litigation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, confirming the order of the Trial Court allowing the amendments. It also directed the Bar Counsel to probe alleged professional misconduct by the counsel on record for the defendants.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No. 12958 of 2010, dated 18.06.2020.
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No. 12958 of 2010, dated 18.06.2020.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank in the main suit in O.S.No.12958 of 2010.
3(a). The defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners herein. The plaintiffs/respondents herein have filed the above said suit in O.S.No.12958 of 2020, for declaration to declare the Thiruthani Arulmigu Murugan Educational Trust as the only valid Board of Trustees and for permanent injunction to restrain the revision petitioners/defendants from interfering with the management, administration and affairs of the trust and Thiruthani Polytechnic College under the head of the Trust.
3(b). Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents herein have also filed two amendments petitions and the same were allowed. Consequently, an additional written statement was also filed.
3(c). After framing of issues, trial has been commenced on 19.02.2020 and the plaintiffs side arguments were completed on 20.01.2020 and the defendants side arguments were completed on 06.03.2020 and the matter was posted to 09.03.2020 for reply of the plaintiffs side argument. Subsequently, after adjournment an application in I.A.No.1 of 2020 has been filed seeking amendment of the prayer in the plaint. The said application was allowed by an order dated 18.06.2020 and hence, CRP by the defendants.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
5. The case of the defendants/revision petitioners herein is that they have filed a suit in O.S.No.12958 of 2020 for declaration and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management, administration of the trust and Tirutani Polytechnic College, working under the trust. Initially, two amendment petitions were allowed and first round of litigation is over and thereafter, additional written statement has also been filed, consequent thereto additional issues were framed, trial and arguments were completed on 06.03.2020 and the present application has been filed on 11.03.2020.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants is that when there is no explanation to show as to why this amendment is filed after 10 years that to after conclusion of the evidence and hence, the present application for amendment of plaint is not maintainable and he relied upon the following judgments:
(2) 2012 (2) CTC 94 - [J.Samuel & Others, Versus Gattu Mahesh & Others]
(3) CDJ 2020 SC 128 – (Supreme Court ) Civil Appeal No. 189 of 2020, Pandit Malhari Mahale Versus Monika Pandit Mahale & Others
(4) Unreported Judgment (Telangana High Court) CRP No. 2551, 2608, 2896 and 2915 of 2019 - B.Srikar Reddy Vs. B.Venkatamma
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents herein would contend that due to inadvertent, the prayer portion was not properly framed and the existing prayer does not give proper meaning which the plaintiffs had intended for. In view of the second prayer after allowing of earlier amendment, additional Court fee has to be paid, consequently necessitates the amendment in the prayer column in respect of details of valuation of the suit and payment of the additional fee thereto and in respect of another amendment regarding functioning college under the said trust in Thiruthani he relied upon the decisions of this Court in
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
