1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.12.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.4 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Muthupillai .. Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff versus Rajasekaran ..Respondent/Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decreetal order dated 18.09.2009 made in I.A.No.416 of 2009 in O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramakudi. For petitioner : Mr.A.Siva Thilakar For respondent : Mr.K.Govindarajan ORDER The plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramakudi, is the revision petitioner herein. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 18.9.2009 made in I.A.No.416 of 2009 in O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif, Paramakudi. 2. The petitioner herein filed a suit for a declaration of his title and for permanent injunction as regards the Schedule I property in O.S.No.92 of 2008 and as an alternative relief, sought for the recovery of possession from the defendant and for a declaration as regards Schedule II property therein and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 and 18, C.P.C., seeking amendment of the plaint as follows: @ gpuhJ III guh 2y; thp 4y; k Pjp 12 brd;l ; brhj;ij vd;wpUg;gij moj;Jtpl;L @k Pjp 12 brd;l ; brhj;jpy; xU gFjpapid@ vd;W nrh;j ;Jf ;bfhz;Lk; mnj ghuh 7tJ thpapy; fpiuak; th';fg ;gl;lJ vd;wpUg;gij moj;Jtpl;L @fpiuak; bgw;Wk; kw;Wk ; i & 12 brd;oy; ,ju gFjpapid ,e;j thjpapd; jhahh; bry;yk ;khs; 29/4/1953e; njjp fpiuak; bgw;Wk; cs;shh;@ vd;Wk ; nrh;j ;J jpUj;jpf;bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/ @ 4. The said petition was resisted by the defendant. By order dated 18.09.2009 in I.A.No.416 of 2009 in O.S.No.92 of 2008, learned District Munsif, Paramakudi, held that as per Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C., no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of the trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The defendant placed reliance on the decision reported in 2004 (2) CTC 742 (Subbu Naicker Vs. Veluchamy Naicker and 3 others). Referring to the same, the trial Court held that there was no sufficient reason for granting the relief and further, even assuming that the plaintiff was justified in his plea, yet, there was a likelihood of an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 inconsistency arising between the first plaint and P.W.1's evidence and that there are no provisions available to correct the evidence let in earlier The Court below further held that the claim of the plaintiff could not be allowed by way of rectifying the deficiencies in the evidence on the side of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C., when the amendment application was filed just after the commencement of the trial and such amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the issue, the Court could allow the amendment on the subjective satisfaction that in spite of due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. The revision petitioner contends that the amendment sought for would not fill up the lacuna and that the relief sought for, for amendment of the plaint, would not change the character of the suit. On the other hand, it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The amendment merely sought to focus the dispute between the parties on correct facts and that no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent/ defendant. 6. I have gone through the petition filed for amendment of the plaint as well as the original plaint, particularly with reference to paragraph 3 therein. A reading of the same shows that the amendment sought for does not substantially amend or cause any contradiction in the statement of facts. On the other hand, the amendment would enable the parties and the Court to focus its attention on the dispute with reference to the property for which the relief is sought for. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent/defendant to file the additional written statement to the amended plaint. On filing of the same, the Court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Paramakudi. +1cc to Mr.S.Sivathilakar, Advocate SR.No.51902 +1cc to Mr.K.Govindarajan, Advocate SR.No.52133 C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.4 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 KM PA/12.01.2011/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/