Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
A.Bhaskar – Appellant
Versus
Anees Ahmed – Respondent
C.R.P.No.1974 of 2025 | C.M.P.No.11353 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Ms.J.Jyothi
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Venkateswaran
Amendments to plaint do not affect substantive rights; parties retain the right to contest their identities.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of plaint - The request to amend the defendant’s name and address was partially granted while ensuring that no accrued rights vest with the plaintiff - Rights of the parties regarding the correct identification remain intact for trial adjudication. (Paras 5-6)
(B) Jurisdiction of Family Court - Time frame imposed for disposal of the suit emphasizes the importance of timely justice within the family court system. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, A.Bhaskar, challenged an order allowing amendment of his name and address in a case for dissolution of marriage. The address was found to be incorrect, leading to a debate over identity with reference to an alias.
Findings of Court:
The amendment of the name to include an alias is granted but the address corrected as per petitioner’s contention.
Issues: The main issues include the correctness of the amendment regarding the name and the appropriateness of the address.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the amendment should not infringe upon the rights of the defendant to contest his true identity whilst affirming the requirement for the trial court to resolve these disputes.
Result: Civil Revision Petition disposed of with directions for timely disposal of the original suit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties contest identity in a dissolution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. agreement on amendments to address. (Para 3) |
| 3. right to contest identity remains intact. (Para 5) |
| 4. court affirms amendment's non-prejudice to rights. (Para 6) |
| 5. import of timely justice in family law matters. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
The husband who is the defendant in O.S.No.110/2024 has come forward with the present the revision, challenging the order in I.ANo.2/2024, dated 23.10.2024, in and by which the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai has permitted the plaintiff / respondent herein to amend the plaint by amending the name and address of the defendant to depict Syed Imran Ahmed as Syed Imran Ahmed @ Baskar and substitute the address Door No.349, Plot No.2, Natesanagar, 1st Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092 with No.85, Kumaran Street, Thiruvethipuram, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai 604 407.
2. Ms.Jothi, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner does not reside in Tiruvannamalai and a false address has been given. Pointing out to the affidavit filed in this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present address of the revision petitioner is only No.47, Block No.1, 4th floor, Shindur Green Park, Jayachandran Nagar, Medavakkam, Chennai 600 100.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection for the amendment of the address to be reflected as Medavakan. In so far as the amendment of the name of the revision petitioner, it is the categorical case of the petitioner that the petitioner is only A.Baskar and he does not have any other name much less the name of Syed Imran Ahmed.
4. However, I find from the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application that the revision petitioner is also known by the name Syed Imran Ahmed. The suit itself has been filed for dissolution of marriage on the ground that both parties follow Muslim customs and practice. Therefore, I find that the suit has been filed against Syed Imran Ahmed and in and by the amendment, the plaintiff wants to depict the name Syed Imran Ahmed @ Baskar. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is identified only by the name Baskar and does not have any name as Syed Imran Ahmed.
5. Be that as it may, merely because the cause title reflects an alias name of the defendant, it would not in any way take away the rights of the defendant to establish the defence taken by way of written statement in the suit and prove that the petitioner's name is only Baskar and he is not known by the name Syed Imran Ahmed. It is made clear that by permitting the amendment, no accrued right would come to vest the respondent / plaintiff and it is open to the parties to prove their respective contentions regarding the correct name of the revision petitioner before the trial Court.
6. In view of the above, the order passed by the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai is partly modified, confirming the amendment of the name of the defendant to include @ Basker along with Syed Imran Ahmed. However, insofar as the address of the revision petitioner, the amendment is to be carried out by the respondent / plaintiff, by incorporating the address as door No.47, Block 1, Fourth Floor, Shindur Green Park, Jayachandran Nagar, Medavakkam, Chennai instead of No.85, Kumaran Street, Thiruvethipuram, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai.
7. With the above modifications, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
8. Further the Trial Court viz., IV Additional Family Court, Chennai is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.110 of 2024 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
