← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/6576/2025dismissed

Babu v. Arul

2026-01-02Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 6576 of 2025 and CMP No.32541 of 2025 Babu, S/o Lakshminarayanan, Rajambal Nagar, Kallakurichi Taluk and District Petitioner(s) Vs

1. Arul S/o Periyasamy, Kavarai Street, Kallakurichi Taluk and District 2.Kalpana W/o Arul, Kavarai Street, Kallakurichi Taluk and District Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.08.2025 made in IA.No.01 of 2025 in OS.No.102 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms. U.Ramya for Mr. R. Bharath Kumar 1/5

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of plaint.

2. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2015 seeking declaration of title, mandatory injunction to the respondents/ defendants, who is the adjacent owner of the property to hand over possession of the encroached portion of suit property to the petitioner.

3. Trial in the suit was already over and now, the matter is posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint, so as to delete the prayer for mandatory injunction and to include a prayer for permanent injunction. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

2/5

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted a report stating the respondents/defendants had put up construction well within their property and there is no encroachment in the property of the petitioner. Since it is established by the report of the Advocate Commissioner that the defendants have not encroached any portion of the suit property, the petitioner wants to delete the prayer for mandatory injunction and to substitute the same with a prayer for injunction. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defendants are the adjacent owner of the suit property and hence, there is every possibility to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff's property by the respondents/defendants.

5. It is not the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the defendants have attempted to interfere with his possession of the property. The petitioner presumed that the construction put up by the defendants lies in his property and filed the suit. The report of the Advocate Commissioner proved that the defendants had put up their construction well within their property. In such circumstances, there is no necessity for inclusion of prayer for injunction, which is sought to be introduced by the petitioner. Further, misconception on 3/5

the part of the petitioner cannot be the basis for allowing amendment application to include the prayer for permanent injunction. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02.01.2026 Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No MST To The I Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

4/5

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

MST 02.01.2026 5/5