← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/83/2023disposed of

Sundar Deivendran v. Thegatta@Chinnavaira Thevar (Died) 2.Sundaravalli

2023-01-12Honourable Mr Justice B.Pugalendhi6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and CMP(MD)No.375 of 2023 Sundar Deivendran ... Petitioner versus

1. Thegatta @ Chinnavaira Thevar (died)

2. P.Sundaravalli

3. K.Selvi

4. V.Rajathi

5. Sekar

6. Sundhan

7. Jayapandiyammal

8. Surathi

9. Minor Sundari

10. Periya Sundhan

11. Malaimegu

12. Dhanalakshmi

13. Kanaga

14. Ganapathi

15. Alagurasathi

16. Paranjothi

17. Sulochana

18. Sivanammal

19. Annakodi 1/6

20. Boomadevi

21. Jeyaraman

22. Selvi

23. Kodivairavan

24. Chinnakaruppan

25. Varadharajan

26. Mokkaraj

27. Manikandan

28. Angusamy

29. Kaliammal

30. Vairachezhiyan

31. Pandi

32. Mariappan

33. Sundar

34. Ganapathy

35. Muthulakshmi

36. Panjammal

37. Petchiammal ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.570 of 2022 in O.S.No.379 of 2017 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.570 of 2022 in O.S.No.379 of 2017 by the 2/6

learned Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.379 of 2017. The said suit was filed in the year 2013 for the relief of partition. The petitioner/plaintiff has also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No. 570 of 2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint. The trial Court, by its order dated 25.11.2022, accepted 1st and 2nd amendments sought by the petitioner and rejected 3rd amendment on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not produced any supportive documents in respect of the correct survey numbers and correct extent of survey numbers. Aggrieved over that, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above interlocutory application based on the patta of those properties, however, he failed to produce the same before the trial Court. Therefore, he requests for a chance for 3/6

the petitioner to produce the patta of those properties and to substantiate his case.

4. Considering the nature of suit and also considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without observing anything on merits of the Civil Revision Petition, directs to the petitioner to produce the relevant patta documents before the trial Court and substantiate that the amendments are required. On filing of those documents, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass orders on merits.

5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.01.2023 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

4/6

To

1. The learned Subordinate Judge, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 12.01.2023 6/6