##PAGE1##

C.R.P.(MD)No.259 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 27.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

C.R.P.(MD)No.259 of 2026

and

C.M.P.(MD)No.1059 of 2026

G.P.S.Garudapparamanujam ... Petitioner

-vs.-

Sengamala Janaki (Died)

Jeyam (Died)

1.Periyathiruvadi

2.Sampathkumar

3.Sadagopan

4.Venkatesh Azhagiyasingh

5.Thiruvadi

6.Azhagiya Singamraman

Thiruvenkadam (Died)

G.P.S.Azhwan (Died)

G.P.S.Srinivasaraghavan (Died)

G.P.S.Periyathiruvadi (Died)

7.Geetha @ Alamelu

8.Seema

9.Andal

10.G.A.Devapiran

11.G.A.Aravinthan

12.G.A.Govindhan

13.G.A.Alagurathi

14.G.A.Mangaladeeparaja

_______________

Page 1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2026 01:27:54 pm )

C.R.P.(MD)No.259 of 2026

15.Geetha Nachiyar

16.G.P.S.S.Santhiyanarayanan ...Respondents

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India to set aside fair order and decreetal order dated 18.08.2022 passed in

I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.349 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate Court,

Srivaikundam.

For Petitioner :Mrs.J.Anandhavalli

For R1 to R6 :Mr.K.Boobalan for

Mr.K.Kumaravel

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the

order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Srivaikundam in I.A.No.2

of 2022 in O.S.No.349 of 2023, dated 18.08.2022.

2.The respondents 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.349 of

2023. The petitioner and the respondents 7 to 16 are the defendants in the

suit. The suit has been filed for declaration of title and for recovery of

possession. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs took out an

application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to amend the plaint. The learned

Subordinate Judge, Srivaikundam, vide order, dated 18.08.2022, had

_______________

Page 2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2026 01:27:54 pm )

C.R.P.(MD)No.259 of 2026

allowed the said application. Challenging the same, the present Civil

Revision Petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating all the contentions

set out in the memorandum of grounds of Revision would submit that

pursuant to the order passed in the application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 filed for

bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased second plaintiff, the

present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking

amendment of the plaint.

4.It is submitted that the trial Court, without properly appreciating

the facts of the case, the nature of the proposed amendment, and its impact

on the proceedings, has mechanically allowed the amendment application.

The Court failed to consider whether such amendment was necessary for

determining the real controversy between the parties or whether it would

prejudice the petitioner’s case. Therefore, the petitioner argues that the

order allowing the amendment has been passed without proper application

of mind and is liable to be set aside.

5.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 would submit that

_______________

Page 3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/04/2026 01:27:54 pm )

C.R.P.(MD)No.259 of 2026

in the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there is a

clear endorsement to the effect that no counter was filed by the petitioner.

Having failed to raise any objection at the relevant point of time, the

petitioner is deemed to have acquiesced to the amendment sought. Hence,

he prays for dismissal of this petition.

6.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

7.Admittedly, the respondents 1 to 6 filed O.S.No.349 of 2023 for

declaration of title along with other reliefs and pending suit, the plaintiffs

filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 to amend the plaint. The same was allowed, which is

under challenge herein.

8.A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the trial Court

has recorded an endorsement that no counter was filed by the petitioner to

the amendment application. When an opportunity was available to the

petitioner t