C.R.P. No.887 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.No.887 of 2017

and C.M.P,No.4362 of 2017

1.V.Rani

2. J.Hemalatha

3. K.Chitra Devi

4. V.Karthikeyan

5. V.Sivasankaramoorthy

6. M.Jawagar ...Petitioners

Vs.

1. S.K.Srinivasan

T.Gopalasamy (died)

RM.Chockalingam (died)

2. Dr.C.G.Naratajan

3. G.Kasthuri

4. G.Ramesh Babu

5. G.Suresh

6.Sabitha Parthiban

... Respondents

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.887 of 2017

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under article 227 of Constitution of

India, praying to set aside the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.91 of

2017 in O.S.No.284 of 2004 on the file of IIIrd Additional District Court,

Salem dated 21.02.2017 and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioners

: Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan

For R1

: Mr.K.Selvakumar

For Ms.Veerasuresh

For R2 : Door Locked

For R3 to R6 : No appearance

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners

challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.91 of 2017 in O.S.No.284

of 2004 on the file of IIIrd Additional District Court, Salem dated

21.02.2017.

2. The original suit in O.S.No.284 of 2004 filed by the plaintiff for the

relief of recovery of possession from the first defendant and other

consequential reliefs.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.887 of 2017

3. The first defendant contested the suit. During the pendency of the

suit, the first defendant was died his legal heirs were impleaded as

defendants 10 to 15 in the suit in I.A.No.891 of 2007 dated 29.08.2007.

Thereafter, the trial Court had examined DW1, the plaintiff filed an

application under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the prayer column by strikeout

the first defendant name and add the defendants 10 to 15. The said

application was strongly objected by the defendants stating that the plaintiff

to drag on the proceedings, the said application was filed after examination

of the plaintiff and the same cannot be permitted.

4. Considering the both side submissions, the trial Judge allowed the

application held that neither the amendment would not cause any hardship

to the parties nor it would change the character of the suit. By relying the

Judgment reported in B.K.N.Pillai vs P.Pillai (Supreme Court of India) Civil

Appeal No.7222-23 of 1999 is extracted hereunder

''It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed

as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is

equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers

should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach

should be the general rule particularly in cases where the

other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. No.887 of 2017

law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the

administration of justice between the parties. Amendments

are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity

of litigation.''

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the trial

Court failed to take note of the fact that when the amendment was carried in

the year 2007 but the plaintiff was not complied with. Thereafter, they come

forward with the present I.A.No.91 of 2017 to amendment in the prayer

column and after completion of the evidence to fill up the lacuna, they come

forward with such application and the same was allowed by the trial Court

as such is totally erroneous and unjust liable to be set aside.

6. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff

submitted that inadvertently the said mistake was committ