Arunachalam v. K.Subramanian
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and C.M.P(MD)No.8957 of 2019 1.Arunachalam 2.Shanmuganathan 3.Karuppaiyah 4.Pethaperumal 5.Nagaraj ... Petitioner /Respondents 1-5/ Defendants 1-5 Vs.
1.K.Subramanian ... Respondent/Petitioner/ Plaintiff 2.Indian Bank, Represented by its Manager, Rendampulikadu Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
3.State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Collector of Thanjavur, Thanjavur.
... Respondents/Respondents 6&7/ Defendants 6&7 1/7
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order, dated 18.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.410 of 2019 in O.S.No.100 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai and set aside.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.R.Murugesan For R1 : Mr.K.Prabhakar For R2 : No Appearance For R3 : Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No100 of 2016 challenging the order passed by the trial Court, wherein the trial Court has allowed an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint to amend the body of the plaint as well as to incorporate a prayer for mandatory injunction.
2. The 1st respondent herein as plaintiff had filed O.S.No.100 of 2016 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 5 from interfering with plaintiff's possession and administration of the Kattu Pillayar Temple located in Alamathikkadu village, Pattukkottai 2/7
Taluk, Tanjavur District. Pending suit, at the instance of the plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.336 of 2017 to note down the physical features of the property. A second application was filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.185 of 2018 to note down certain developments that have taken place with regard to the stability of the building. Based upon the Commissioner's report, the present application in I.A.No.410 of 2019 has been filed seeking to amend the plaint and also to incorporate a prayer for mandatory injunction.
3. A perusal of the amendment application reveals that a Hundiyal which is located outside the temple has been broken open and the amount in the said Hundiyal has been misappropriated by the defendants. Therefore, certain averments are sought to be incorporated in the plaint and a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deposit the said amount. These applications were stoutly opposed by the defendants on the ground that they are no way connected with the main prayer in the suit and the said applications are being filed only to drag on the proceedings. However, the trial Court was pleased to allow those applications. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendants 1 to 5.
3/7
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the plaintiff is in the habit of continuously filing interim applications to drag on the proceedings. He further contended that though the interim application filed by the plaintiff has already been dismissed, the plaintiff is not interested in pursuing the suit and therefore, they are continuously filing various applications one after the other. Two applications have been filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. In fact, in the second Commissioner's report, there is no reference about any misappropriation of the funds from the Hundiyal. On the other hand, the defendants are in the administration of the suit temple and therefore, the present application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings.
He further pointed out that already an order of status quo has been granted by this Court on 27.02.2017 in C.R.P(MD)No.35 of 2017 and directions have been issued for early disposal of the suit. However, the plaintiff is not co-operating for the early disposal of the suit. Without co-operating for the disposal, he is harassing the villagers by filing application after application.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the Hundiyal is part of the suit schedule property and in 4/7
view of the Commissioner's report, it is clear that the defendants have opened the Hundiyal and taken the amount. That apart, the amendment application being a pre-trial amendment, the same has to be allowed. He further pointed out that the Hundiyal being subject matter of the suit schedule property, the amendment of the plaint is not based upon any new cause of action or it is not likely to change the cause of action, which is already stated in the plaint. He further agreed for the early disposal of the suit.
6. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the opinion that the Hundiyal being already a subject matter of the suit schedule property and there are allegations on the side of the plaintiff that the Hundiyal has been opened and allegedly some amount has been taken from the said Hundiyal, the amendment sought for could be allowed. The amendment application has been filed in the pre-trial stage. This does not change the cause of action or it is contrary to the cause of action already prayed for in the suit. However, it could be seen that the report of the Commissioner has been filed on 12.07.2018 and the present application for amendment of the plaint has been filed on 16.09.2019 with a delay of more than one year. Considering the fact that already cost 5/7
has been imposed by the trial Court and the said order has been complied with by the plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that the revision petition could be dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to dispose off the suit at an earlier point of time.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to dispose off the suit on or before 31.08.2024 and the same may be reported to the Registry. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial for early disposal of the suit. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 08.04.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg To 1.The District Munsif Court, Pattukottai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
R.
VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg Order made in 08.04.2024 7/7