1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:23.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2130/11 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1/11 K.Periasamy Chettiar :Petitioner/Plaintiff -Vs- 1.K.Rathinam Chettiar 2.K.Balasubramaniam :Respondents/Defendants Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 13.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1198 of 2010 in Original Suit No.175 of 1998 by the District Munsif Court, Musiri. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : No appearance ORDER The order dated 13.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1198 of 2010 in Original Suit No.175 of 1998 by the District Munsif Court, Musiri is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2.The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.175 of 1998 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of perpetual and mandatory injunctions, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.1198 of 2010 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to make amendments in the plaint as set out in the petition. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3.Even though the respondents have been served with the summonses, appearance has not been made and therefore this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit properties as joint family manager and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed so as to make necessary amendments in the plaint and the Court below without considering the nature of amendments sought to be introduced, has erroneously dismissed the petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 5.For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into paragraph No.3 of the plaint, wherein it has been clearly stated that all the suit properties are the exclusive properties of the family of the plaintiff. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff in his individual capacity and not as a manager of joint family. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6.The first and foremost amendment sought to be introduced is nothing, but family manager.The remaining amendments sought to be introduced are relating to settlement deed and the date of its execution and also relating to deletion of 'E' schedule property and including the same as 'D schedule property. Further some amendments are sought to be introduced with regard to properties, which have not been mentioned in the original plaint. 7.The Court below has dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that some new properties have been introduced in the present petition by way of amendment. 8.Considering the fact that in the plaint paragraph No.3, it has been specifically stated that all the suit properties are the exclusive properties of joint family of the plaintiff and also considering that the plaintiff has filed the present suit in his individual capacity, the plaintiff can be permitted to amend the plaint to the effect that he represents the joint family mentioned in the plaint and likewise the plaintiff can be permitted to make amendments with regard to date of settlement deed and also deletion of 'E' schedule property and inclusion of the same with 'D' schedule property. Further the plaintiff can be permitted to make amendments in the plaint with regard to mandatory injunction. 9.As rightly pointed out by the Court below, in the present petition some new items of properties have been included. Since some new items of properties have been included, the same cannot be allowed to include in the plaint by way of amendment. Under the said circumstances, only with regard to properties already mentioned in the plaint, the concerned proposed amendments can be permitted. With regard to inclusion of new items of properties, this petition cannot be allowed and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be modified as stated infra. 10.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1198 of 2010 in Original Suit No.175 of 1998 by the District Munsif Court, Musiri is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.1198 of 2010 is allowed in part only with regard to capacity of the plaintiff and also with regard to proposed amendments sought to be introduced only in respect of the properties mentioned in the plaint. The dismissal order passed by the Court below is confirmed with regard to the properties sought to be introduced for the first time in the present petition.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The District Munsif, Musiri. Smn C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2130 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 RP/07.12.2011/2P/2C. 23.11.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/