Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
D. Velmurugan – Appellant
Versus
D. Varanshi – Respondent
CRP No. 3674 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.D.Rajagopal
For the Respondents: Ms.P.Vidhya shree, M/s. P.T. Ramadevi for RR1 to 3 & 5 to 9
The court ruled that amendments to correct misdescriptions in a plaint should be allowed unless they substantially change the cause of action, prioritizing justice and access to remedy.
Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Amendment of plaint - Application for amending schedule by substituting survey number - Trial Court dismissed amendment stating it would result in changing cause of action. - Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes amendments should be permitted liberally unless they alter the suit's character or cause of action, even when delayed. (Paras 3, 4, 8)
(B) Re-litigation - Trial Court's refusal based on previous decrees and re-litigation concerning same property - Defendants may contest maintainability based on prior findings but must detail objections in their written statement. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The revision petition arose from a suit where the plaintiff sought an amendment to the plaint regarding a cart track's survey number. The application was dismissed by the trial Court which ruled that it was attempting to modify the cause of action.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no serious prejudice against the defendants if the amendment was granted, as it sought to rectify a misdescription of the property.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the amendment's relation to the cause of action and whether prior decrees enforce the current amendment request.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that amendments to correct misdescriptions should be allowed, affirming permitting such actions unlike the trial court's findings of re-litigation and misdescription as the basis for refusal.
Result: Revision stands allowed, with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition arises from amendment request regarding survey number. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. amendments to correct misdescription should be allowed. (Para 3) |
| 3. prior decrees do not prevent amendments unless re-litigation is unequivocally evident. (Para 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 4. court emphasizes fairness in allowing amendments to facilitate justice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER
Heard Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Vidhyashree, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 & 5 to 9.
2. The revision petition is at the instance of the plaintiff in the application for amending the schedule to the plaint, by substituting the survey number originally mentioned in the plaint viz., S.Nos.279/11-15 with S.No.279/5. The said application was opposed by the defendants, and the trial Court had accepted the contention of the defendants and proceeded to dismiss the application.
3. Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would state that the trial Court has gone into the merits of the amendment, as sought for, and ought to have only decided whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek amendment of the schedule. He would further state that there is no change in the cause of action or the original character of the suit, since, admittedly, there is only one suit cart track, which is the subject matter of the dispute and the parties are at issue with regard to the said cart track. He would also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamd and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 717 , where an amendment was sought for to correct the wrong description in the plaint schedule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing that though there was a delay on the part of the plaintiff to seek the said amendment, proceeded to allow the amendment on the ground that if the amendment is not permitted, the suit itself will be rendered non- maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also found that as long as there is no material change in the character of the suit and cause of action, prayer for amendment has to be entertained liberally.
4. Per contra, Ms.P.Vidhyashree, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would state that the present attempt of the plaintiff is only to get over the earlier decree passed in respect of the very same property in S.No.279. She would refer to the concurrent findings in the earlier connected proceeding, which came to be confirmed by this Court in the second appeal. She would also point out to the refusal of grant of leave to file a fresh suit, consequent to withdrawal request sought for by the plaintiff. The second appeal was dismissed on 26.08.2019 and liberty was not granted to the appellant i,e, the plaintiff herein.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that under the guise of amending the schedule, the plaintiff is re-agitating the issue that has already been settled and become final. There is no merit in the revision, and the order of the trial Court does not warrant any interference.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
7. The earlier suit in O.S.No.269 of 1998 was no doubt filed by the present plaintiff/revision petitioner, in which also, there appears to be a dispute with regard to a cart track. In the said suit, the property that has been described as cart track is mentioned as S.No.279, and the sub division is not mentioned. The said suit was decreed and it has become final with the disposal of the second appeal, as discussed herein above. It is thereafter, the plaintiff alleging that there has been disturbance and interference in the use of the cart track comprised in S.No.279/11-15, has filed the present suit, on 11.12.2019. The cause of action of the present suit is only in the allegation that the defendants have interfered with the right of the plaintiff to use the
