1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on

: 22.08.2023

Delivered on

: 27.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN

THILAKAVADI

C.R.P(MD)No.1988 of 2022

and

C.M.P(MD)No.9126 of 2022

1.Senthamaraikannan

2.Lakshmi alias Duraichi

... Petitioners/Respondents1&2/

Respondents

Vs.

Muthu(Died)

1.Rakkammal

2.Sriram

Raghupathi Lakshmi(Died)

3.Gandhimathi

...Respondent 1to 3/Petitioner

2,3,5/Appellants

4.Thirunavukarsu

5.The District Collector,

Virudhunagar.

6.The Tahsildar,

Srivilliputtur.

7.The Executive Engineer,

State High Ways

Srivilliputtur.

8.Gopal

...Respondents 4 to 8/Respondents

3 to 7/Respondents 3 to 7

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

2

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, to set aside the order dated 04.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019

in A.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Srivilliputtur,

by allowing this civil revision petition.

For Petitioners

:Mr.A.Sivaji

For R1,R2,R4

:Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi

For R5 to R7

:Mr.G.Suriyanath

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal

order, dated 04.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.7 of 2014 by

the Additional Sub-Court, Srivilliputtur.

2.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition,

are as follows:-

One Muthu along with others filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 2005 before

the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, for permanent injunction

against the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit property. The revision petitioners are the

defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the

first plaintiff died and the defendants 4 and 5 were impleaded as the legal

heirs of the first plaintiff. Apart from that, Official Respondents were added

as respondents 4 to 6, who also contested the suit. The seventh defendant

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

3

remained ex-parte. The trial Court, based on the materials and the

averments made in the plaint and in the written statement, dismissed the

above suit on 11.11.2013. Against which, the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs

filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2014 before the Additional Sub-Court,

Srivilliputtur. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the respondents 1 to

3/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., to

amend the appeal memorandum. The same was opposed by the revision

petitioners. However, the appellate Court allowed the application on

04.08.2022. Against which, the present civil revision petition is filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted

that on account of misdescription of parties, the suit is not maintainable.

Considering the above facts, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit

filed by the respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an

application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 only on 14.10.2019 with delay. The

appellate Court ought to have dismissed the application on the ground of

delay. The learned counsel further submitted that without adding proper and

necessary parties in the suit, the same cannot be cured by allowing the

present application to amend the appeal memorandum.

The

respondents/plaintiffs ought to have filed a separate suit after issuing notice

under Section 80 of C.P.C. Without issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C.,

to the Government, the suit itself is not maintainable. The learned counsel

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

4

further submitted that the issuance of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., is

mandatory and it is not a curable defect. Therefore, the appellate Court

allowing the application to amend the appeal memorandum is unsustainable

in law. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order passed by the

appellate Court.

4.On the other hand, the learn