C.R.P.PD.No.705 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

25/4/2023

Pronounced on

28/6/2023

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

Civil Revision Petition PD No.705 of 2023

a n d

C.M.P.No.5512 of 2023

Govindasamy

...

Petitioner

Vs

1. Dhanalakshmi

2. Ramya

3. Aarthi

4. Balaji

...

Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to

set aside the order dated 24/1/2023 made in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in

O.S.No.175 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court,

Perundurai.

For Petitioner

...

Mr.N.Manoharan

For respondents

...

Mr.A.Sundaravadhanam

1/8

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

C.R.P.PD.No.705 of 2023

O R D E R

The plaintiff who is not successful in getting the approval of the trial

Court, for amendment of plaint filed, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.175 of 2009, on the

file of the learned District Munsif, Perundurai has filed this Civil

Revision Petition.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner has filed a suit for

partition against the respondents/defendants of the schedule of properties

and to allot one half of the share to the petitioner and the remaining half

share to the respondents/defendants.

The respondents have filed

written statements, issues have been settled, plaintiff's evidence was

completed, defendants evidence was also completed and the matter was

posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner has moved an

application, in I.A.No.3 of 2022, seeking to amend the plaint and the

same was declined by the trial Court.

3. Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.A.Sundaravadhanam, learned counsel for the respondents.

2/8

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

C.R.P.PD.No.705 of 2023

4. Perused the entire materials available on record.

5. The petitioner who has originally filed a suit for partition of the

schedule of property alleging that the petitioner and respondents are

entitled for half of the share each, intend to amend the plaint claiming

that he is the exclusive owner of the plaint schedule, giving a go by to his

earlier admission, that the respondents are entitled for half of the share.

6. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as under:-

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,

3/8

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

C.R.P.PD.No.705 of 2023

unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in

spite of due diligence, the party could not have

raised the matter before the commencement of

trial.”

7. The provisio to the above provision permitting the parties to

amend the pleadings is that the amendment shall not be entertained, once

the trial has commenced. In the case on hand, not only trial has

commenced, but the trial has also concluded.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has

been seeking the amendment of plaint, as the petitioner got the orders

from the District Revenue Officer, Erode and consequential order of

Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar, wherein

certain amendments in the revenue records are made to the effect that he

is the owner in respect of the schedule of property. Orders which the

petitioner/plaintiff stated to have been obtained are pertaining to the

years 2017 – 2020 which are subsequently to the filing of the suit.

However, the question to be seen is that the revenue records will not

decide the tile of a person over the specific schedule of property. The

4/8

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

C.