Kannaiyan v. V.Natesan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1755 and 1776 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.9291 and 9363 of 2016 V.Kannaiyan S/o.Late Venkataraman ... Petitioner in both revisions vs 1.V.Natesan S/o.Late Venkataraman 2.V.Arumugam S/o.Late Venkataraman 3.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Salem Main Road, Krishnagiri District.

4.The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, Salem Main Road, Krishnagiri District.

... Respondent in both revisions Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders of learned Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2008 on 05.02.2016. For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Prakasam *****

C O M M O N O R D E R These revisions arise against the orders of learned Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2008 on 05.02.2016.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

3. A perusal of the orders under challenge reveals that the suit filed in the year 2008, wherein the petitioner sought declaration of title and other consequential reliefs, has entered the stage of arguments first on 13.12.2010 and thereafter, owing to many petitions moved by petitioner/plaintiff, there has been much delay in the conduct of proceedings and finally, when the case was posted for arguments on 21.12.2015, again the petitioner/plaintiff has moved applications seeking amendment of plaint. In dismissing the applications, the Court below has reasoned that the amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff would change the cause of action, which could not be permitted at the stage of arguments.

It noted that without informing why the proposed changes in the plaint could not be effected earlier, petitioner sought to make several insertions and vary the events towards filling up lacunae. It, further, has reasoned that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the applications only to protract the proceedings and to harass the first respondent/defendant. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge.

The Civil Revision Petitions, accordingly, are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.06.2016 Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm To The Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri.

C.T.SELVAM, J gm Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1755 and 1776 of 2016 20.06.2016