Advocates:
['M/S SHANMUGA ASSOCIATES', 'M/S V R APPASWAMEE', '', 'NA MALAISARAVANAN', 'V VIJAYARAJAN', 'FOR RR AND']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24-09-2013

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN

C.R.P. No. 3479 of 2013

and

M.P. No. 1 of 2013

J. Shivakumar, Chairman,

Navrang Shipping Pvt Ltd.,

No.156/254, Thambu Chetty Street,

Chennai – 600 001.

..Petitioner/Plaintiff

-Versus-

1. M/s. P.N.T. Chandru

Managing Director

Navrang Shipping Pvt Ltd

No.156/254, Thambu Chetty Street

Chennai – 600 001

2. M/s. Navrang Shipping Pvt Ltd

rep. by its Managing Director

Mr. P.N.T. Chandru

No.156/254, Thambu Chetty Street

Chennai – 600 001

3. Indian Trans

A Partnership firm

rep. by its Partner Parvathy Devi

No.61, Old No.32

Kachaleeswarar Agraharam

Chennai – 600 001

..Respondents/Defendants 1 & 2/3rd Defendant

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC against

the Order dated 31.07.2013 passed in I.A. No. 3 of 2013 in I.A. No.

184 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1548 of 2011 on the file of XVIII Additional

Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.

For Petitioners :

Mr. Shanmugham

for M/s. Shanmugha Associates

For Respondents :

Mr. V.R. Appaswamee for RR1 and 2

ORDER

The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1548 of 2011 on the file of the learned

XVIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is the revision

petitioner herein. The suit was originally filed as C.S. No. 1192 of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2008 before this Court and subsequently it was transferred and re-

numbered as O.S. No. 1548 of 2011. The suit was filed for the relief

of declaration, mandatory injunction and also for a permanent

injunction morefully set out in the plaint. The suit was decreed

exparte on 08.11.2012. Thereafter, a petition in I.A. No. 184 of

2012 in O.S. No. 1548 of 2012 was filed on 06.12.2012 under Order IX

Rule 13 of CPC was filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit

seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated 08.11.2012. This

application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a counter

affidavit. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed the instant

application in I.A. No. 3 of 2013 in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 in O.S. No.

1548 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the affidavit and

petition in I.A. No. 184 of 2012 by replacing "O.S. No. 1548 of 2011"

instead of "O.S. No. 1485 of 2011" in the prayer portion of the

affidavit and petition. Even for this application, a counter was

filed by the plaintiff praying to dismiss the application for

amendment. The trial court, after considering the rival submissions

and after elaborate discussion allowed I.A. No. 3 of 2013 with costs

of Rs.500/-. Accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2

herein have paid the cost. Thereafter, the plaintiff has come

forward with the present revision petition.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

would contend that the amendment sought to be made by the defendants

1 and 2, after disposal of the suit, is legally not sustainable. The

court below has passed the impugned order only by considering Order

VI Rule 17 of CPC and not the proviso made therein. The proviso to

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC clearly stipulates that amendment can be

permitted only before commencement of the trial. In this case, after

the suit was decreed exparte, the present amendment is sought to be

made and it was erroneously allowed by the trial court, therefore,

the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

3.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendants 1

and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein would contend that the amendment

sought to be made is to rectify a typographical error which had crept

in. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would further

contend that the suit was decreed exparte and to set aside the

exparte decree, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed I.A. No. 184 of

2012 in time. Subsequently, the respondents 1 and 2 have noti