IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 29.9.2009
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR
Civil Revision Petition (PD)No.2919 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Thiru G.Kaliappan. ... Revision Petitioner/
Petitioner/Plaintiff
vs.
1.Thiru N.R.Ramakrishnan,
2.Tmt.Vasantha,
3.Tmt.Padmavathi,
4.Thiru Ramani alias N.R.Balasubramanian,
5.Thiru K.Kanagaraj,
6.Tmt.Rajeswari. ... Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order and decreetal order dated 15.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2009 in O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghupathi
-----
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order and decreetal order dated 15.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2009 in O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The suit has been filed for partition and delivery of separate possession. The I.A.No.9 of 2009 has been filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. The main prayer sought for in I.A.No.9 of 2009 is to set aside two sale deeds dated 15.2.1994 executed by the defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the defendants 5 and 6 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff, the revision petitioner filed the suit for partition and the defendants have filed their written statement in which it has been clearly stated that the defendants 1 to 4 have executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendants 5 and 6. This fact is not disputed by the plaintiff, the revision petitioner. The written statement was filed on 3.8.2007. The trial commenced on 9.4.2008. Plaintiff’s side evidence was closed on 7.8.2008 and the defendant’s side evidence was closed on 18.11.2008. At this point of time, on 22.12.2008, this I.A.No.9 of 2009 has been filed to amend the plaint so as to set aside two sale deeds of the year 1994.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff/revision petitioner that he came to know about the sale deeds after filing the suit. This statement was not believed by the court below as the plaintiff/revision petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that he knew about the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the defendants 5 and 6 and that he has verified the sale deeds in the month of December, 2006 itself. The trial court came to conclusion that the plaintiff/revision petitioner had knowledge about the sale deeds even prior to the institution of the suit. Furthermore, when the written statement has been filed on 3.8.2007 revealing the above facts, the plaintiff did not choose to file the application now filed. On the contrary, he proceeded with the trial and the plaintiff’s evidence was recorded and closed on 7.8.2008 and that of the defendants’ side on 18.11.2008. Therefore, the relief sought for in the interim application to the knowledge of the plaintiff/revision petitioner is belated and not maintainable on the ground of latches.
5. The court below was justified in dismissing the application filed at the fag end of the trial for which reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Vidyabai and others vs. – Padmalatha and another reported in 2009(3) L.W.137. The revision petitioner has not shown any good reason as to why he did not seek the amendment at the earliest stage. He was aware of the sale deeds even prior to the filing of the suit. Revision petitioner/plaintiff has not shown due diligence in filing the application for amendment. The reason given by the revision petitioner/plaintiff seems to be shallow and only to cover up the lapses. The court below was justified in dismissing the application, particularly, when the trial had commenced and the evidence of all sides has been completed. There is no serious infirmity in the order of the court below to interfere.
6. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts
To
The Principal Sub Judge,
Chengalpattu