1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 27.09.2011 C O R A M The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P (PD)(MD).No.1862 of 2011 & M.P (MD).No.1 of 2011 Anbu Maran .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Gurusamy 2. Tamilselvan 3. Azhagu Vendan 4. Banumathi .. Respondents The civil revision petition is filed to set aside the order in I.A.No.24 of 2011 in O.S.No.127 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, dated 28.07.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondents : Mr.V.Sitharanjandass for R3 ORDER The plaintiff has filed the above civil revision petition challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.24 of 2011 in O.S.No.127 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. 2. The revision petitioner has filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint. The case of the revision petitioner was that the petition mentioned property was purchased in the name of his mother on 07.07.1978 out of the joint family income. Therefore, the property belongs to the joint family and the plaintiff is having 1/5th share in the property. However, the said averment was not mentioned in the plaint. According to the revision petitioner, he came to know about the fact only recently. Therefore, he filed the application to amend the plaint. Such application was strongly resisted by the defendants by filing their counter. 3. The trial Court after taking into consideration the case of both parties dismissed the application finding that it was filed at a belated stage. 4. Heard Mr.K.R.Laxman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sitharanjandass, learned counsel for the third respondent. 5. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made on either side, it is not in dispute https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 that the plaintiff has filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint, when the suit is posted for trial. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the defendants filed a memo before the trial Court submitting to the decree. After the filing of the said memo, the plaintiff has come forward with the present application to amend the plaint. The plea now sought to be raised by way of amendment in the plaint is contrary to the pleadings originally made by him in the plaint. That apart, the plaintiff has waited for three years for filing the present application for amendment of the plaint that too when the matter is posted for trial and after the filing of the memo by the defendants for submitting to the decree. The trial Court has rightly found that the plaintiff filed the application for amendment belatedly and dismissed the application. I find no merits in the civil revision petition and it is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. +1 CC to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate (SR.No.33489) +1 CC to Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, Advocate (SR.No.33333) Order made in C.R.P.(MD).No.1862 of 2011 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 27.09.2011 jikr NSV/18.10.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/