S.V.S Oil Mills v. W.G.Kalyanasundaram
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and C.M.P.No.21256 of 2024 S.V.S Oil Mills Regd. Partnership Firm rep. By Its Partner Thiru V.Jayakumaran carrying On Business At Door No.8/12 Thiruvotriyur High Road ...
Petitioner -Vs1 W.G.Kalyanasundaram 2 W.G.Sulochana Ammal 3 W.G.Pankajavalli 4 W.G.Sarojini 5 W.G.Vijayakumari 6 W.G.Devaranjini 7 W.G.Devamanokari 8 V.Srinivasan 9 S.Radhika 10 W.S.Sivachakravarthy 11 W.S.Sarojini Amma 12 W.S.Siva Rani 13 K.Punithavathi 14 Prasanth 15 N.Ramalingam 16 Rajeswari 17 Deivanayagam @ Deivanayaki 18 Umasankaran 19 Rukmaniammal 20 Chandran 21 Jijibai 22 Geetha 23 Padmini @ Sathyabhama 24 Rajasekaran
25 S.Saroja 26 W.S.Raja 27 W.S.Kumar 28 Kalpana 29 Latha 30 Anitha 31 W.S.Jothi 32 W.S.Ravichandran 33 J.Mohana Santhi 34 B.Jamuna 35 S.Mahalakshmi 36 B.rathinamala 37 M.C.Jagadeesan 38 J.Saravana Kumar 39 J.Arun Kumar 40 M.Jaya Shankar @ Babu 41 M.Jayakanth 42 S.Pramila 43 Maia @ Nirmala 44 C.Chandrasekaran 45 C.Sethuraman 46 C.Gunabhooshani 47 C.Vijaya Lakshmi 48 C.Leelavathy 49 C.Hemalatha 50 C.Anandhi 51 D.Sridharan 52 V.Veerammal @ Vimala 53 Pushpaveni 54 K.Samundeeswari 55 P.Venkatachalapathy 56 R.Ranjani 57 W.R.Kuppuraj 58 J.Mohana Sundari 59 B.Kalaivani 60 V.Nirmala 61 R.Revathi 62 W.S.Suguna 63 T.D.Hemalatha 64 T.D.Suresh Babu 65 S.Shanmugapriyan 66 S.Kannagi 67 W.S.Elango 68 W.S.Shantakumar
69 C.Malarvizhi 70 D.Kalyani 71 W.S.Suresh ....
Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by Learned V Additional City Civil Court Chennai rejecting the unnumbered application in IA SR No.60197/2022 in OS No.7582/2021.
For Petitioner :
Mr.J.Kalidass for Mr.R.Vaidyanathan
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order of the V Additional City Civil Court in I.A.SR.No.60197 of 2023 in O.S.No.7581 of 2021 dated 12.09.2023.
2. O.S.No.7581 of 2021 is a suit for specific performance of a lease agreement dated 19.11.1970. In terms of the lease agreement, the plaintiff entered possession of the property as a lessee. According to him, the lease agreement granted him three periods of 25 years each to remain in possession, the first period commencing from 19.11.1970 to 18.11.1995. He would state that he made a demand for extension of lease by a further period in terms of the lease agreement dated 19.11.1970 for a further period of 25 years from 08.12.1995. As the defendants did not accede to the request, he came forth with the suit in C.S.No.281 of 2023. Due to the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit
stood transferred to the V Additional City Civil Court and was renumbered as O.S.No.7582 of 2021. By the time the suit came up for disposal, the period of 25 years from 08.12.1995 had expired. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application seeking to amend the plaint for a direction to execute a lease deed for a further period of 25 years from 08.12.2020. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. Hence the revision.
3. Heard Mr.J.Kalidass for the civil revision petitioner. Mr.Kalidass would submit that the lessee claims the property by virtue of a lease deed entered into by it with the defendant on 19.11.1970. All that he proposes to do by virtue of the amendment is a further extension of the lease so granted.
4. Every extension of lease would give a fresh cause of action for the plaintiff in case he is rightly entitled to it and the same is denied by the defendants. The case as originally presented before the Court was for the lease period from 08.12.1995 to 07.12.2020. The said period has already expired. If the plaintiff pleads that he has complied with the conditions of lease deed and he is entitled for an extension of lease, then it gives rise to a new cause of action. The remedy in such a case is only to file a fresh suit and not to amend the pending suit. This is because the plaintiff would have to prove before the Court that he was ready and willing to get a fresh lease deed executed from 2020 till 2045. The plaintiff can only plead about its readiness and willingness in the year 1995. If the plaintiff is not
ready and willing for the subsequent period, then he would not be entitled for a decree for specific performance. Being a separate cause of action, the plaintiff cannot amend the existing plaint. Leaving it open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit if he is so advised, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.10.2024 Index : Yes/No KST To V Additional City Civil Court Chennai
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST 04.10.2024