Jaya Mary v. Irudhaya Mary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 18.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
1. Jaya Mary
2. Arokiasamy
3. Sagaya Mary
4. Mariyammal 5.Fathima Mary 6.Pushpa Mary 7.Nambikkai Mary 8.Thomas 9.Fransis Xvier 10.Lilly Mary 11.Arokiya Irudhayaraj
...Petitioners
Vs
1. Irudhaya Mary
2. Victoriya
3. Lourdhu Mary
...Respondents
1/6
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filled under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 30.09.2024 made in I.A.No.09 of 2024 in O.S.No.66 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Panchatsaram
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.09 of 2024 in O.S.No.66 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri in and by which the learned Judge had allowed the application for amending the plaint.
2. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs had filed the suit in question for partition, separate possession, permanent injunction, declaration and other reliefs.
2/6
3. When the matter was posted for the defendants' side further evidence and after examining the Village Administrative Officer of Orapakkam, the plaintiffs came to learn that the survey number of Item No.II of the "A" schedule property, R.S.No.365/5 had been wrongly mentioned as R.S.No.765/5 and is not situate at Kattinayanapalli village. Likewise, with regard to Item No.III of the "B" schedule, the Village name was wrongly mentioned as Kattiganapalli instead of Kattinayanapalli. Therefore, to amend the same I.A.No.9 of 2024 has been filed.
4. The petitioners / defendants had objected to the application stating that it is highly belated and the same has been filed at the nth hour. The application in fact has been filed 3 years after the trial had started. The amendment would result in a change in the cause of action and subject matter.
3/6
5. The learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri on considering the same, had allowed the application and held that where an amendment application is filed, what has to be analysed is whether the amendment is essential for settling the issues that is framed in the suit and whether the same has been filed for protracting the proceedings. Challenging the same, petitioners/defendants 1 to 11 are before this Court.
6. The amendment that is sought for by the plaintiffs does not, in any manner, change the character of the suit or the subject matter. The first amendment that is sought for is to correct the survey number which has been wrongly shown as R.S.No.765/5 instead of R.S.No.365/5 and the second amendment is to change the name of the village from Kattiganapalli to Kattinayanapalli. No amendment has been sought to alter the boundaries. The learned Judge has observed that if this amendment is not permitted, the plaintiffs will 4/6
not be able to execute the decree. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. However, the learned Judge shall endevour to dispose of the suit within a period of one month from the date of the amendment being carried out. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.03.2025 Index: yes/no Speaking Order: Yes/No srn To The Additional District Court, Krishnagiri.
5/6
P.T.ASHA, J.
srn 18.03.2025 6/6