BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and CMP(MD) No.5364 of 2023 V.Kannammal ... Petitioner vs.

1.M/s. Harikardwelling Private Limited, Trichy – 1, Represented by its Director -

T. Viswanathan

2.K.Murugesan ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 09.02.2023 made in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in O.S. No.1111 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Trichy.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.I.Muthiah For R1 : Mr.K.S.Vamsidhar For R2 : No appearance

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order dated

09.02.2023 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in O.S.No.1111 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Trichy.

2.The Civil Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. He presented O.S.No.1111 of 2015 seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the second defendant, his men, servants., and etc from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Pending suit, he filed an amendment application, which came to be dismissed. Hence, this Revision.

3.The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the property from the first defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 29.03.2012. The plot that he had purchased bears Plot No.13. The said plot is the suit schedule property. The second defendant had purchased Plot Nos.72 and 73 from a different owner, by name, Chitra on 06.05.2015. As both the properties fall in old SF.No.153/1C/118, the plaintiff alleged that the second defendant is attempting to interfere with his possession. Hence, the suit.

4.Summon was served on the defendants. The second defendant filed a written statement pointing out that the predecessors in title of the plaintiff are totally different from the predecessors-in-title of the defendant and that he has nothing to do with Plot.No.13 purchased by the plaintiff. He accepted that he had purchased Plot.Nos.72 and 73 in SF.No.153/1C/117 part & 153/1C/118 part comprised in New.T.S.No.289, ward-AU, Block 13. He pleaded that the derivation of title by the plaintiff and second defendant are different and that the property of the plaintiff is situated elsewhere. On these and other pleadings, he sought dismissal of the suit.

5.Pending suit, the plaintiff took out an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.628 of 2015. The said application was allowed. An advocate Commissioner was appointed. He also submitted a report, together with a plan on 17.06.2016. The plaintiff, on perusal of the Advocate Commissioner's report, came to understand that the second defendant had encroached upon a portion of the plaintiff's property and put up constructions. Hence, she moved an application for amendment in I.A.No.1 of 2022, seeking to add an additional prayer of mandatory injunction, calling upon the second defendant to remove the superstructures put up over the area marked 'ABCD' in the 'EFGH'

portion of the Advocate Commissioner's Plan.

6.This application was resisted by the first respondent herein.

The first respondent, who is the vendor of the plaintiff, took a stand that the petitioner is abusing the judicial process in an attempt to encroach upon the defendant's property. It was further pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner's report has not been marked before the Court. It was also pleaded that the petitioner should seek the relief of recovery of possession and not mandatory injunction.

7.Curiously enough, a plea was taken that a suit for mandatory injunction should be filed within a period of 3 years. The second defendant, who would have been aggrieved, in case the amendment had been ordered, remained ex parte.

8.The learned trial Judge took up the application on the basis of the counter filed by the first respondent. He concluded that the application had been filed with a delay and also that the plaintiff should only seek for declaration a