2026:MHC:830 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :20.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.No.3140 of 2025 and CMP.No.17506 of 2025

1.Thulasimani

2.A.N.Chandrasekaran

3.K.Ravichandran ... Petitioners vs.

1.Bakkialakshmi

2.Ponnusamy (died)

[Respondent-2 died. Respondents 1 and 3 (who is already on record)

are recorded as LRs of the deceased R-2 viz. Ponnusamy as per memo dated 09.09.2025 are recorded and vide Court order dated 20.01.2026 made in CRP.No.3140 of 2025 and CMP.No.17506 of 2025]

3.P.Suresh Kumar

4.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, 23, Pudukottaimain Road, Kallukuzhi, Trichy – 620 020.

5.Indian Overseas Bank, Office at 95, Srinivasanpuram, Coimbatore Main Road, Avinashi, Tiruppur District.

6.A.Muthusamy ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 03.03.2025 made in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.54 of 2002 by District Munsif Court, Palladam, Tiruppur District.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Athimoolam For Respondents :Mr.V.Ramamurthy for R1 & R3 Mr.A.Swaminathan for R4 R2-died Mrs.N.Geetha for R5 No Appearance for R6 O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the amendment application filed by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. When the suit was pending, he filed an application for amendment seeking inclusion of prayer for mandatory injunction. According to the petitioner, when the suit was pending, the defendants trespassed into the suit property and illegally put up construction. The said application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that existence of construction in the suit property was mentioned by the first defendant in his written statement even in the year 2002 and therefore, the present application filed by the petitioner seeking inclusion in mandatory injunction is barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the prayer for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that pending suit, the defendants entered into the property and put up construction. Therefore, the amendment sought for by the petitioner to remove the construction shall be allowed. He also submitted the amendment application was based on subsequent construction, therefore, the Court shall be liberal in taking into consideration the amendment application.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the existence of construction was mentioned in the written statement filed by the first defendant as early as on 2002 and therefore, the amendment application filed by the petitioner in the year 2025 cannot be considered due to limitation.

5. The petitioner initially filed a suit for bare injunction and the same was subsequently amended, therefore as on today, the prayer is for declaration of title and recovery of possession. When the petitioner seeks larger relief of recovery of possession, there is no necessity for him to seek removal of construction. Once the petitioner establishes his right to get possession of the suit properties, the construction put up by the defendants, after filing of the suit is liable to be removed and executing Court has got incidental power to order removal of the construction that came into existence pending suit. In this regard reference may be had to decision of this Court in Madasami Vs. Govindaraj reported in 2007 (1) CTC 217. The relevant observation of Court reads as follows:

16. It appears from para-7 of its Order that only with reference to the Amin's return, the Executing Court came to the conclusion that the amended construction existed in the lane even prior to the suit and the Executing Court proceeded on the premise that the wall existed even before the s