Mohamed Sulthan Alavudeen v. Thirunavukkarasu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.04.2018 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1036 of 2013 and M.P.(MDNo.1 of 2013 1.Mohamed Sulthan Alavudeen Rowther 2.Mahaboob Batcha :Petitioners vs.
Thirunavukkarasu : Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order dated 24.01.2012, made in I.A.No.199 of 2012 in O.S.No.124 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai. For Petitioners :Mr.B.Muruganandam For Respondent :Mr.R.Sundar Srivasan *****
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed by the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.124 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakotai, as against the order passed in I.A.No.199 of 2012 in O.S.No.124 of 2008, which is filed to amend the suit schedule by including the boundary description of the suit property. 2.The plaintiff earlier filed a suit for declaration of title and consequently for recovery of possession. The suit property has been described as an extent of 86 cents in S.No.44/3 in Saththikottai Village, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District. The suit was filed, of course, in the year 2008. However, after filing of the written statement and commencement of trial, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.199 of 2012, for amending the plaint to define the boundary of the suit property.
This application was opposed by the defendants mainly on the ground that the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings and that the change of plaint schedule will result in change of cause of action. 3.The trial Court found that the petition for amendment is required and that omitting the boundary description of the property earlier is a bona fide mistake. The petition filed for amendment in plaint to include the boundary description of suit property is found https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
justified by the trial Court and hence, the same was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed.
4.The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that amendment of plaint schedule, after commencement of trial is intentional and the petition is liable to dismissed. It is further stated by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the plaintiff has filed the petition for amendment, after completion of trial and in order to collapse the evidence and materials on record, which would result in retrial. Finally, it is contended that the amendment would cause serious hardships to the defendants. 5.With regard to the admitted facts in this case, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the suit property. The fact that the suit property lies in a particular survey number is not in dispute.
The parties have no dispute with regard to the subject matter of the suit property and the issues that have arisen for consideration. It is only by way of clarification and for the purpose of properly executing the decree, the description of the suit property has been supplemented by way of amendment. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that the suit property originally described by referring to the survey number, is not related to the property, for which the boundary is given by way of amendment. In such circumstances, this Court find no merits in this civil revision petition.
6.As a result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Devakottai.
Copy to:
The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai(2 Copies) +1CC to Mr.B.Muruganandam, Advocate, SR.No. 64646 +1CC to Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan, Advocate, SR.No. 64666 C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1036 of 2013 28.04.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CMR AM/SKN RSK/SAR 4/22.05.2018/2P/6C