IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 05-11-2025

Pronounced on: 27.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

CRP.No.2179 of 2016

and CMP.No.11359 of 2016

Kandasamy Petitioner

vs

1. Kalyanasundaram (died)

2. C.Duraisamy

3. The Sub Collector,

Collector Office, Pollachi.

4. District Collector,

District Collector Office Compound,

Coimbatore 641 018.

5. Thulsimani 6. Maheswari

7. Poornimadevi

Respondents

[Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on record as

LRs of the deceased first respondent vide

order of this Court dated 23.08.2023 in

CMP.Nos.18114 and 18123 and

18124 of 2023 in CRP.Nos.2179 of 2016]

Prayer:

This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal orders dated 07.12.2015 in I.A.No.88 of 2015 in O.S.No.181 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Judge’s Court Pollachi.

For Appellant(s): Mr.C.R.Prasanan For Respondent(s):

R1 – died Mr.R.Vigneswaran, G.A., for R3 and R4 Mr.C.S.Saravanan, for R2 Mr.V.P.Sengothavel, for M/s.Indu Priya, for R5 to R7

ORDER

The revision petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed a petition for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 in I.A.No.88 of 2015 in O.S.No.181 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court Pollachi and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 07.12.2015.

Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. The Revision Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court alleging that he is the plaintiff in the main suit and he filed the main suit for the relief of permanent injunction. The official respondents 3 and 4 in their written statement agreed to obey the order of this Court. While so, the respondents 3 and 4 transferred name in the revenue records and thereby it is against the undertaking made by them. However, the petitioner/plaintiff already filed a suit for specific performance of contract and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Pending suit, the revenue records were mutated. Therefore, he filed the application to amend the plaint.

3. The respondents vehemently opposed the same and filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable. They submitted that the respondents 3 and 4 already passed order transferring the name in the property on 25.03.2008 and there is no deviation in the undertaking given by them. He further submitted that the application has been field belatedly. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant filed the application to amend the plaint and the petitioner already obtained decree of specific performance of contract in OS.No.67 of 2007 and the same was confirmed in the first appeal. As against which, second appeals are pending. The Trial Court dismissed the application by holding that the revision filed by the applicant had already been dismissed by the District Revenue Officer. The proposed amendment is seeking mandatory injunction directing the respondents 3 and 4 to delete the name of the second defendant in patta proceedings on the ground that he has no title and for substituting the value of the relief by adding the payment of Court fee and such added value, was rejected. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the second defendant purchased the suit property through sale deed and based on the sale deed, he approached the revenue authorities and they passed order including the name of the second defendant in the patta based on the title deed. Though the petitioner obtained decree for specific performance, so far, title has not been passed in his favour as the second appeals are pending. The Trial Court has passed the order by holding that the plaintiff has not taken any steps for 6 years even after filing of the written statement. Therefore, the Trial Court passed a reasoned order and the present application is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Cour