C.R.P.No.2865 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

Civil Revision Petition.No.2865 of 2022

and C.M.P.No.15529 of 2022

1.V.Matheswaran

2.Chitra

... Petitioners

Vs.

M.C.Ragul

... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India seeking to set aside the fair and final order dated 15.12.2021 in

I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.184 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Sub

Court, Erode.

For Petitioners

: Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

For respondent

: Mr.Shase

for Mr.M.Guruprasad

ORDER

The petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the orders passed

in I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.184 of 2014, dated 15.12.2021 by the learned

I Additional Sub Judge, Erode.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2865 of 2022

The facts in brief as can be gathered from the records are as follows:

2. The respondent/plaint has filed O.S.No.184 of 2014, seeking

declaration of title in respect of schedule mentioned property shown as EFCG

in rough sketch enclosed to the suit and for delivery of the vacant possession

of the same by removing of super structures by way of mandatory injunction.

3. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit schedule properties

were purchased from its original owner by name Vasanthi under registered

sale deed on 27.11.1997 and since then, the he has been in possession and

enjoyment of the property and that taking advantage of absence of plaintiff,

the petitioners/defendants have encroached EFCG portion of the suit property

and raised constructions.

4. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement denying the

allegations levelled against them and submitted that they purchased the

property adjacent to the suit schedule property on 12.03.1998 and that they

have not encroached the property belonging to respondent/plaintiff and the

constructions in the schedule of properties were in existence long time to the

notice of the respondent/plaintiff.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2865 of 2022

5. During the course of trial P.W.1 and P.W.2 and D.W.1 were

examined at that stage, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A.No.208 of 2014 for

appointment of Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical

features of the schedule of property and the said application came to be

allowed. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner has visited the suit

schedule property on 27.11.2018 and filed a report showing the exact

measurements of alleged encroachment made by the petitioners/defendants.

6. The respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.5 of 2020 seeking to

amend the plaint basing on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the

petitioners/defendants have opposed it, however, the said petition was

allowed on 15.12.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners have challenged the

orders passed by the Trial Court on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioners

for amendment of plaint was filed belatedly. Secondly, amendments to the

plaint is proposed to improve and fill the lacunae in plaintiff's case.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.2865 of 2022

9. Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. runs as under:-

"[17. Amendment of pleadings.— The Court may at any

stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his

pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just,

and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary

for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy

between the parties: Provided that no application for

amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,