Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/2162/2025dismissed

R.Ilanchiyam v. A.Rengasamy

2025-08-07Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P(MD)No.2162 of 2025 and CMP (MD) No.12688 of 2025

1. R.Ilanchiyam

2. R.Yoharaj

3. R.Loganathan

4. R.Gobi ... Petitioner(s) Vs.

1. A.Rengasamy

2. R.Annadurai

3. R.Renganathan

4. Gobalakrishnan ... Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition - filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.02.2025 passed in IA No. 4 of 2024 in OS No.286 of 2021 by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi and allow this Civil Revision Petition. 1/6

For Petitioners : Mr.S.B.Kayvin Prince

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed for a direction to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No. 286 of 2021 by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi and to allow this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.286 of 2021. The said suit was filed by the petitioners seeking an injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

The respondents/defendants filed a written statement. Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 to submit a reply statement. However, after filing the reply statement, the petitioners realized that certain averments were omitted due to typographical errors. Therefore, they filed an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the said amendment petition was dismissed. Challenging the order of dismissal, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

2/6

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, admittedly, the trial Court had granted permission to the petitioners in I.A.No.3 of 2024, pursuant to which the reply statement was filed. Subsequently, the petitioners realized that certain averments had been inadvertently omitted during the typing of the reply statement. Therefore, the present amendment petition was filed to incorporate those omitted averments. The learned counsel further contends that allowing such amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Nevertheless, the trial Court dismissed the amendment petition, which, according to the learned counsel, is untenable. Accordingly, he prays before this Court to allow the revision petition.

4. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

3/6

6. This Court has perused the reply statement filed by the petitioners pursuant to the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024, as well as the present amendment petition. There is no substantial difference between the reply statement and the proposed amended averments. Even so, the petitioners are at liberty to canvass the contents of the reply statement during the course of trial. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not necessary.

7. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the revision petitioners to canvass all the grounds before the trial Court at the time of trial. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN 4/6

To 1.The Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

PKN C.R.P.(MD)No.2162 of 2025 07.08.2025 6/6