The court ruled that amendments seeking time-barred reliefs are impermissible even if they are sought pre-trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on:16.07.2025 Pronounced on:22.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. No.1896 of 2024 and CMP. No.10043 of 2024 Sakuntha (Died)

Manian Petitioner Vs

1.M.Sengodan

2.S.Shanmugam Respondents PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.356 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Attur, Salem District.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Shakespeare For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran ********** O R D E R The second plaintiff in O.S. No.356 of 2013, before the learned Additional District Munsif, Attur is the revision petitioner, challenging the order in I.A. No. 5 of 2022 seeking amendment of the plaint. The Trial Court has dismissed the amendment Application, as against which, the plaintiff is before this Court.

2. I have heard Mr.K.Shakespeare, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr.K.Shakesphere, would submit that the amendment Application was a pre-trial amendment and the Trial Court ought to have liberally viewed the same and permitted amendment. He would further submit that the Trial Court failed to see that the issue of limitation was only a mixed question of facts and law and the same cannot be decided while enquiring into an application for amendment, in order to deny the pre-trial amendment in favour of the plaintiff. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order of the Trial Court disallowing the requests for amendment is by way of a well reasoned order and the same does not require interference. He would further state that the petitioner was aware of the sale deed even on the date of execution of the sale deed and therefore, rightly the Trial Court has not permitted introduction of a time barred claim which is clearly hit by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 . The learned counsel would therefore pray dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings in the suit as well as in Interlocutory Application seeking amendment. 6. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaring the sale deed dated

15.07.2013 as null and void. The said sale deed has been executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff also seeks for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The first defendant has filed a detailed written statement disputing the entitlement of the plaintiff to the reliefs sought for. Pending suit, no doubt before commencement of trial, the second plaintiff took out an Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, to include a prayer to set aside the sale deed dated 15.07.2013 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant instead of declaration that the sale deed is null and void. The second plaintiff also sought for payment of additional Court fee for the said prayer under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 .

7. In the counter to the said Application, the first defendant has stated that the document viz., the sale deed dated 15.07.2013 is sought to be declared as null and void in the plaint and after filing of the written statement, in order to get over the bar under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and after the defect was pointed out in the wri