SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. R.N.MANJULA, J
Rajini Balakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
K.Madhavan Naidu (deceased) – Respondent
A. No. 3674 of 2025 in C.S. No.474 of 2013|C.S. No.474 of 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.Auxila Peter
For the Respondents:

The court upheld the amendment of the plaint as it did not change the nature of the suit despite objections.

Headnote:The judgment addresses an application to amend a plaint under Order XIV Rule 8 and Section 151 of the CPC. The applicants discovered the entitlement to compensation based on testimony during cross-examination. The court finds that the nature of the suit remains unchanged and allows the amendment, ensuring the respondents may file additional statements.

Table of Content
1. application to amend the plaint details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents' objection to the amendment. (Para 4)
3. applicants discover property acquisition and compensation rights. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's evaluation of the amendment impact. (Para 7)
5. court's ruling permitting the amendment. (Para 8)
6. additional statements allowed post-amendment. (Para 9 , 11)

O R D E R

The applicants /plaintiffs have filed this application to amend the plaint as the particulars of the amendment shown in the Judges Summons.

2. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that during the cross-examination of the DW1, he had deposed that some of the suit properties have been acquired for the purpose of laying pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation as well as by the CMRL and for which, he has received the compensation.

3. As the applicants came to know about the same only after the cross-examination of the DW1 was completed, now the applicants intend to amend the prayer and particulars of the properties by including their share of rights in the compensation received by the 2nd defendant in the suit, who has been examined as DW1.

4. However, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objected that this would cause a denova trial and the issues ought to have been raised at the time when the suit was instituted cannot be raised at later stage.

5. The submission of the applicants is that they came to know about the acquisition of some of the suit properties by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited and the Indian Oil Corporation by awarding compensation only after DW1 had spoken about the same. They have also learnt that the compensation amount awarded and the same has also been received only by DW1.

6. In case the applicants could establish their entitlement of share in the suit properties, which were acquired, then the sharers will also be entitled to compensation.

7. As the matter in issue revolves only with regard to their entitlement over the suit schedule properties and the element of compensation, I do not feel that it will change the nature of the suit or would result in conducting a denova trial.

8. In the interest of justice, the applicants are permitted to amend the plaint in accordance with the particulars of amendment as shown in the Judges Summons.

9. However, the respondents are at liberty to file their additional statements after the amendments are carried out.

10. In the result, the application is allowed. No costs.

11. A copy of the amended plaint to be filed within a period of two weeks.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top