Vijayalakshmi v. Raju @ Raja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.No.

of 202 and C.M.P.No.

30338 of 202 R.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner vs.

1.Raju @ Raja 2.Sekar 3.Nallammal 4.Alamelu Pongiammal (died) Mani (died) Malliga (died) Saraswathy (died) 5.Alamelu 6.Parameshwari 7.Palaniammal 1/9

8.Amsaveni 9.Sengodan 10.Kaliannan 11.Murugesan 12.Rajammal 13.Sekar 14.Chandra 15.Nirmala 16.Ramayee 17.Viji 18.Gowrisankari @ Nivetha (Minor) D/o. Late. Senthilmurugan, Rep. By Next Friend Guardian/Mother Viji, Nos.17 and 18 are residing at Palanikadu, Valrasapalayam, Modamangalam Post, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

19.Vijaya Senthilmurugan (died) 20.Sumathi 2/9

21.M.Raju 22.Malathy 23.Harish 24.Sowrish, (Minor) S/o. Late. Senthil Murugan Rep. By Guardian/Mother Jothi 25.Jothi 26.Ganesamoorthy 27.Parimala 28.Baby Sasi ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 27.10.2025 made in I.A.No.15 of 2025 in O.S.No.118 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Sankari by allowing this Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Sub Court, Sankari in I.A.No.15 of 2025 in O.S.No.118 of 2008, dated 3/9

27.10.2025 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. The petitioner herein is the 10th defendant in the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.118 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari. The same was resisted by the petitioner and other defendants by filing written statement. The trial in the suit is already commenced and two witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs. After closure of the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner/10th defendant seeking to include certain properties as suit properties on the ground that those properties are also available for partition. The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the properties sought to be introduced were dealt with in a partition between the defendants 16 to 22. Therefore, the said properties shall be included in the plaint schedule as the same is also available for partition as ancestral 4/9

properties of the plaintiffs and defendants.

4. It is seen from the typed-set of papers, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner after closure of evidence on the side of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in the year 2008. The petitioner, who was arrayed as 10th defendant in the suit filed her written statement as early as 13.04.2010. Subsequently, an additional written statement was also filed by the 10th defendant. In the written statement, the petitioner herein has not raised any plea with regard to the availability of the other properties for partition. Now, after commencement of trial, the instant application has been filed stating that the properties sought to be included were dealt with by defendants 16 to 22 in a partition among them.

5. As per proviso to Order 6 of Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, the party applying for amendment, shall satisfy the Court as to what prevented him from seeking amendment prior to commencement of the trial In the affidavit filed in support of the present amendment application, the petitioner has not given any reason for her failure to seek amendment prior to commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others 5/9

vs. Padmalatha and another reported in (2008) 17 S.C.R.505 = MANU/SC/8401/2008, held that Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code is mandatory and in view of non-compliance of said provision, the amendment petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

6. According to the petitioner, the properties sought to be included were dealt with by defendants 16 to 22 in a partition among them in the year 1986. Merely because, the properties were included in a partition among defendants 16 to 22, we cannot readily come to a conclusion that the same is the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and other defendants. Therefore, the petitioner has no prima facie material to show that the properties in question are the ancestral properties. In such circumstances, I do not find any material irregularity in the order passed by the Sub Court, Sankari in I.A.No.15 of 2025 in O.S.No.118 of 2008, dated 27.10.2025.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.12.2025 6/9

Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm 7/9

To The Sub Court, Sankari.

8/9

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm C.R.P.No.

of 202 .12 .2025 9/9