IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20/06/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION(PD) NO. 796 OF 2002.
AND
C.M.P.NO.6351 OF 2002.
1.Venkatalakshmamma
2.Smadhamma
3.Kodamma .. Petitioners
Versus
1.Singirippa
2.Mariappa
3.Kempamma
4.Mallamma
5.Narayanappa
6.Mallesappa
7.Peddamallappa
8.Chinnamallappa
9.Venkatamma .. Respondents
Civil Revision against the order and decree dated 19.6..2001 made in
I.A.No.584 of 1997 in O.S.No.232 of 1993 by the Court of District Munsif,
Thenkanikottai.
!For Revision Petitioners: Mr.Mr.M.J.Jaseem Mohamed.
^For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari.
:O R D E R
The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners,
against the order and decree dated 19.6..2001 made in I.A.No.584 of 1997 in
O.S.No.232 of 1993 by the Court of District Munsif, Thenkanikottai thereby
dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the
plaint.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and te respondents
as well and perused the records.
3. Having regard to the materials made available and upon hearing the
learned counsel for both, what comes tobe known is that it is a suit filed as
early as in the year 1985 and on a different occasion it came tobe transferred
to another court and renumbered as O.S.No.232 of 1993 and the stage at which
I.A.No.584 of 1997 was filed in the year 1997 i.e. after a lapse of 12 years
and when the suit was ripe for trial.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
at the time of filing of the suit he was in possession of the suit property
and in the meantime he got ejected by force by the other side, as a result he
had to necessarily file the application praying for adverse possession, thus
amending the plaint to the said effect.
5. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners would cite two judgments both delivered by single Judges of this
Court, the first one reported in K.SHANMUGHAM & TWO OTHERS Versus S. LAKSHMI
AMMAL (1995(II) CTC 461), wherein it is held that :
“So long as the cause of action for the original suit is not changed and when
the other relief is based on the subsequent events that took place during the
pendency of the suit and the nature of the suit also is not changed, the
amendment cannot be refused.”
So far as the case in hand is concerned, the allegation of the petitioner is
to the effect that at the time of filing of the suit he was in possession and
since recently he was made bereft of the same, he has to seek amendment,which
is not accepted and therefore, this judgment is in no manner going to help the
petitioner at all.
6. In the second judgment reported in SANJEEVI AMMAL AND 3 OTHERS
Versus NARASIMHA NAICKER AND ANOTHER (2000(III) CTC 389) wherein, the
plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint for recovery of property on the basis of
title, the Court held such amendment meant substitution of one relief for
another relief on basis of the same facts and does not result in any change of
cause of action or nature of suit. The case in hand is one which is entirely
of a different fact than what it is in the said case since it is neither
connected to an application for recovery of property on the basis of title o r
in any other manner connected to the facts of the case so as to adopt the
judgment for a valid conclusion to be arrived at in this case.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents would point out that the petitioner is in the habit of filing such
applications one after another and never did he allow all these years to
prosecute the suit so as to allow it to attain its logical conclusions and
therefore, the lower Court on such grounds and also on merits dismissed the
application with costs.
8. A cursory glance had at the order of the lower Court would also
show that the lower Court having traced the facts and circumstances neatly and
having framed proper point for consideration and on clear discussions held has
arrived at proper conclusions to dismiss the application with costs and
therefore, this Court does not have any valid or tangible reasons in such of
the conclusions arrived at by the lower Court in dismissing the application
filed on the part of the petitioner herein, the plaintiff in the suit and
hence the following order.
In result,
(i)the above Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(ii)the fair and decretal order dated 19.6..2001 made in I.A.No.584 of 1997 in
O.S.No.232 of 1993 by the Court of District Munsif, Thenkanikottai is hereby
confirmed.
(iii)However, it has become incumbent on the part of this Court to fix norms
for disposal of the suit which is pending for 17 long years and therefore a
further direction is given to the lower court to expedite the trial and
complete the same so as to deliver the judgment at any costs not more than
three months from today and report compliance.
(iv)In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(v)Consequently C.M.P.NO.6351 OF 2002 is closed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
gr.
To
District Munsif, Thenkanikottai.
V.KANAGARAJ,J
C.R.P(PD)NO.796 OF 2002