Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Jothiraman, J
Sarojiniammal – Appellant
Versus
T. Porumainathan, Sumathiammal – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition | CRP.No.3069 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.P. Sudalaiyandi
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Manisekaran
The court allowed an extension for amendment of plaint to prevent irreparable harm, reflecting the need for procedural fairness in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 148 and Section 151 - Extension of time for amendment of plaint - Plaintiff has filed for partition and sought an extension for amendment after the stipulated period, previously allowed by court - Amendment is necessary for the due processes of law and preventing irreparable harm to the plaintiff. (Paras 4, 6)
(B) Court's direction for time extension and expedited disposal - The Court allowed the plaintiff to complete necessary amendments within a week and directed the lower court to dispose of the suit within six months in the context of the case's age and nature. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed the suit for partition under O.S.No.145 of 2015 and sought the amendment of the plaint regarding property, which was previously granted. Later, the plaintiff sought further extension post the stipulated amendment period.
Findings of Court:
Court deemed it appropriate to grant one more opportunity for the amendment and directed immediate action to keep the case progressing.
Issues: The key issues were the timeliness of the amendment request and the plaintiff's right to amend following prior permission granted by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court assesses the need for due process in legal proceedings and prioritizes the avoidance of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, justifying extension of amendment deadlines where necessary.
Result: The civil revision petition is disposed of with directions.
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN CRP.No.3069 of 2025 Sarojiniammal ... Petitioner Versus
1. T. Porumainathan, 2. Sumathiammal ... Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the docket order and petition in I.A. SR. No.1408 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025 in O.S. No.145 of 2015 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram and consequently, direct the Principal Subordinate Judge, to number and dispose the I.A. SR. No.1408 of 2025 in O.S. No.145 of 2015 on merit and pass such orders accordingly.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P. Sudalaiyandi For Respondents : Mr. V. Manisekaran ****
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the docket order and petition in I.A. SR. No.1408 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025 in O.S. No.145 of 2015 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram and consequently, direct the Principal Subordinate Judge, to number and dispose the I.A. SR. No.1408 of 2025 in O.S. No.145 of 2015 on merit and pass such orders accordingly.
2. The facts of the case is as follows:
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who has filed the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2015 seeking for partition. The respondents herein are the defendants who have filed written statement and necessary issues have been framed in the aforesaid suit. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 in O.S. No.145 of 2015 to amend the plaint with regard to the schedule of property which was allowed by order dated 31.07.2024 of the Court below. Thereafter, it was posted for special list. At this stage, the plaintiff has filed another application in IA SR No.1408 of 2025 under Section 148 R/W with Section 151 CPC seeking for extension of time to amend the plaint as per the order passed in I.A. No.1 of 2023. However, unnumbered application has been returned stating that the case was posted for special list on 02.06.2025. Aggrieved over the above, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard both sides.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is only an consequential amendment. The Trial Court by order dated 31.07.2024 has already allowed to amend the plaint in I.A. No.1 of 2023. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing before the Court below, has not carry out the amendment, he has sought for extension of time to carry out the amendment in the plaint by taking out application in IA SR No.1408 of 2025 which has been returned by the Court below. If the amendment petition is not allowed, the petitioner/plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and untold hardship. Hence, he seeks the releif as prayed for.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the amendment petition is allowed long back on 31.07.2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in C.S. No.145 of 2015. However, the plaintiff has not amended the plaint within the stipulated period as prescribed in the Law. As per the law, the plaintiff has to amend the plaint within a period of 14 days. After a long time, the APC has been filed seeking for extension of time. Hence, the Court below has rightly returned. Therefore, there is no reason warranting interference with the order of the Court below.
6. It is seen from the records that the case in O.S. No.145 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, has been filed for partition. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed IA No.1 of 2023 seeking for amendment in the plaint schedule property. The application came to be allowed on 31.07.2024. Subsequent to the aforesaid order, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has not amended the plaint. Only on 03.02.2025, the unnumbered application came to be filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking for extension of time to carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, in order to decid
