Mrs. Rajini Balakrishnan v. K.Madhavan Naidu (Decd.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA 1.Rajini Balakrishnan 2.V.Revathi 3.Rama Gunasekaran ...Applicants Vs.
K.Madhavan Naidu (deceased) 2.K.Radhadevi 3.K.Ramesh 4.K.Shakila 5.K.Ramya 6.K.Rithish
...Respondents
Prayer : These applications have been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to permit the applicants/ plaintiffs to amend the plaint in C.S. No. 474 of 2013 as detailed in the Judges Summons.
For applicants : M/s.Auxila Peter
O R D E R
The applicants /plaintiffs have filed this application to amend the plaint as the particulars of the amendment shown in the Judges Summons.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that during the cross-examination of the DW1, he had deposed that some of the suit properties have been acquired for the purpose of laying pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation as well as by the CMRL and for which, he has received the compensation.
3. As the applicants came to know about the same only after the cross-examination of the DW1 was completed, now the applicants intend to amend the prayer and particulars of the properties by including their share of rights in the compensation received by the 2nd defendant in the suit, who has been examined as DW1.
4. However, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objected that this would cause a denova trial and the issues ought to have been raised at the time when the suit was instituted cannot be raised at
later stage.
5. The submission of the applicants is that they came to know about the acquisition of some of the suit properties by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited and the Indian Oil Corporation by awarding compensation only after DW1 had spoken about the same. They have also learnt that the compensation amount awarded and the same has also been received only by DW1.
6. In case the applicants could establish their entitlement of share in the suit properties, which were acquired, then the sharers will also be entitled to compensation.
7. As the matter in issue revolves only with regard to their entitlement over the suit schedule properties and the element of compensation, I do not feel that it will change the nature of the suit or would result in conducting a denova trial.
8. In the interest of justice, the applicants are permitted to amend the plaint in accordance with the particulars of amendment as shown in the Judges Summons.
9. However, the respondents are at liberty to file their additional statements after the amendments are carried out.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. No costs.
11. A copy of the amended plaint to be filed within a period of two weeks.
11.09.2025 Maya
Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.
Maya Dated : 11.09.2025