Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23966

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Andal W/o .Shanmugam – Appellant
Versus
Kuyilammal (Died), Indira W/O. Annamalai Pillai, Ramamoorthy S/o. Annamalai, Sagunthala Ammal W/o. Sarangan, Mageswari W/o. Late Venkatesan, Minor Pavesh S/o. Late Venkatesan, Rathina Pillai S/o. Manicka Pillai, Gopal S/o. Rathina Pillai, Parameswari W/o. Ramamoorthy – Respondent
CMP No. 6139 of 2026| CRP No. 1248 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Gunaseelan, Sujatha Gunaseelan, G.Lokeshwaran, G.Shakthipriya, S.Siva Sankari, A.Sanjay
For the Respondents: None mentioned

Amendments to court fee applications should be allowed if they do not cause prejudice to the other party.

Headnote:Section Analysis: The Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act was referenced, specifically Section 25(a) and Section 25(b). Facts: The petitioner filed an amendment application regarding court fees after the trial court dismissed it, citing lack of diligence. Court Findings: The court recognized the need for amendment without causing prejudice.

Issues: Whether the amendment sought would cause injustice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that denying the amendment would violate the petitioner's ability to prove her case.

Result: This Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No Costs.

Table of Content
1. application for amendment in plaint (Para 1 , 2)
2. need for reconsideration by trial court (Para 3)
3. final ruling allowing the petition (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 03.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of

2. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2000 on amend the plaint in OS No. 24 of 2000. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the plaintiff was not diligent during the trial of the suit especially when DW.1 deposed with respect to Court fees and it would cause injustice to the defendants who are contesting the suit from the year 2000.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per prayer sought in the plaint, the plaintiff should have mentioned Section 25(a) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act but erroneously mentioned as Section 25(b) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. Therefore, the necessity arose for the petitioner to file amendment application during cross examination of D.W.1. But without considering the said averments the Trial Court dismissed the petition. The amendment prayed by the petitioner is related to payment of Court fee. If at all payment of Court fee is under dispute, as on date, the matter is part heard and in respect of Court fees no separate issues framed. In such circumstances the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondents nor it would change the course of the suit. But the Court below without appreciating the above dismissed the said application.

4. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that if the opportunity is not given to the petitioner her valuable right to prove her case will be defeated. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.9 of District is hereby set aside. I.A.No.9 of 2025 in O.S.No.24 of 2000 is allowed. Further, the Trial Court is directed to frame the issue in respect of Court fees and liberty is granted to the respondents to file additional written statement, if any, before the Trial Court. Since the suit is of the year 2000, the Trial Court is directed to dispose the suit as early as possible.

6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No Costs. Pending petition, if any, is/are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document