Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A. No.72 of 2013 in O.S. No.283 of 2008 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No.283 of 2008 for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The defendant filed his written statement and is contesting the suit. Subsequently, the defendant also filed an additional written statement.
3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.72 of 2013 under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint.
3.1 The plaintiffs have stated that originally the patta was granted in the name of Varadharajulu for the suit property in S.No.684/11. The said Varadharajulu is the father of the first plaintiff. Based on the patta in the name of the first plaintiff's father, the suit was filed in respect of S.No.684/11. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, under the Right to Information Act, to furnish the correlation record in respect of old S.No.111. The Deputy Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, by his letter dated 05.11.2012, informed the plaintiffs' counsel that the old S.No.111 has been subdivided as S.Nos.684/1A and 684/1B. The S.No.684/1A has been further subdivided as S.No.684/1 and S.Nos.684/3 to 684 /11. The S.No.684/1B has not been further subdivided and patta was granted in the name of Adhilakshmi Ammal. From the said Adhilakshmi Ammal, Varadarajulu has purchased the suit property.
3.2 According to the plaintiffs, patta for S.No.684/11 was wrongly issued in the name of Varadarajulu. Patta for S.No.684/11 was already granted in the name of one V.Gopalakrishnan. Now, the patta was granted in the name of Varadarajulu for S.No.684/1B. According to the plaintiffs, there is no change in the extent and the mistake was committed by the Revenue officials. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs sought for amendment of the New S.No.684/11 by deleting it.
4. The defendant filed his counter stating that the present application has been filed after the commencement of the trial and that the entire evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was proceeded as per the earlier pleadings. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected. Further, the defendant has stated that he has obtained particulars of the subject matter of the property and also subdivision details from the Tahsildar, Chengalpattu and from the Municipality and through which it would be known that the Revenue Department has furnished some incorrect particulars in the F.M.Sketch and other documents.
5. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, allowed the application.
6. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.
7. Mr.K.P.Gnanasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously allowed the amendment application filed after the commencement of the Trial, more so, when the plaintiffs had proceeded with the trial based on the available pleadings. Further, the learned counsel submitted that by allowing the amendment application, after the commencement of the trial would put the defendant in a disadvantageous position. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) 2000 AIHC 2396 (M/s.Capricorn one and another v.
Raghbir Singh and others) wherein the Delhi High Court, held as follows:-
"13. In conclusion it is clear to me that the amendment sought for ought not to be allowed for the reason that it introduces a totally new case, distinct to that contained in the plaint. If the amendment is allowed the land, which is the subject matter of the suit, would change from "Khasara No. 207 (min) measuring approximately 432 sq. Yards" to "F-126 New Katwaria Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi". If the contention of the/learned counsel for the plaintiff is to be accepted then there is scarce need to delete the words "out of Khasra No. 207(min)," since it would be the case that these Khasra Nos. are in fact synonymous and interchangeable.
14. It is also relevant that this application has come for determination after the interim order was granted by the learned Appellate Court with specific reference to the suit property as contained in the plaint. Allowing the application at this stage tantamount to altering the sweep of the interim order granted by the learned Appellate Court, which I am constrained not to do."
(ii) AIR 1998 Rajasthan 227 (Vaidhya Shyam Sunder Joshi v. Jain Vishwa Bharti Ladnu and others), wherein the Rajasthan High Court held as follows:-
"9. In view of the ratio propounded in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co., (AIR 1977 SC 680) (supra) by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his plaint by withdrawing the admissions made in the plaint so as to displace the defendants completely from the admissions made in the plaint. As the case ofAkshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa (AIR 1995 SC 1498) (supra) cited by Mr. K.
N. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has been declared per incuriam by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal (1998 AIR SCW 219) (supra), it will be of no help to the plaintiff."
8. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.P.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that the Trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application for the reason that the Revenue Officials has assigned wrong Survey Number which was corrected later on by the Revenue Officials. The learned counsel further submitted that the proposed amendment is only with regard to the deletion of S.No.684/11, therefore, when there is no change in the extent and other details, mere change of Survey Number as per the revenue records shall not change the character of the suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) CDJ 2009 MHC 7009 (G.Chandranath & another v.
S.Rajapushpam) wherein this court held that principle of amendment is illustrative and exhaustive and all amendments are allowed complying with the conditions that it shall not do injustice to the other side and the amendment is necessary for the purpose of resolving the dispute in controversy between the parties.
(ii) CDJ 2007 MHC 2900 (Church of South India Trust Association, Tiruchirapalli-Thanjavur Diocesan Council, and others v. Kovil Pillai and others) , wherein this court held as follows:-
"13. A perusal of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners would bring out the following principles that are governing the Application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC:
1) Amendment to the pleadings cannot be turned down by courts merely on the score that they introduce an inconsistent plea or a new cause of action.
2) The true test is whether the amendment is foreign to the subject matter of the suit and if not whether it would be in the interest of justice to grant it. 3)Amendment may be allowed irrespective of law of limitation, if the cause of action is not going to be changed and in the interest of justice.
4) Since the amendment of the plaint being the discretion of the court, it need not be refused on technical grounds.
5) Alternative relief sought by way of amendment can be allowed even if belated, but the other side should be compensated with costs.
6) Allowing of this Application is a rule and rejection is an exception.
7) Pre-trial amendment are to be allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of trial or after the conclusion thereof.
8) If it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, there is no difficulty in accepting his Application for amendment of plaint."
(iii) CDJ 2007 MHC 1148 (Meenakshi & anotehr v. Selvaraj @ Selvam & others) wherein this court held that technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties and the amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigations.
9. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, it could be seen that the suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in respect of Survey No.684/11. Since the Deputy Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, by his letter dated 05.11.2012, informed the plaintiffs' counsel that the old S.No.111 has been subdivided as S.Nos.684/1A and 684/1B and that S.No.684/1B has not been further subdivided, the plaintiffs sought for amendment of the plaint. The Deputy Tahsildar also informed the plaintiffs that S.No.684/1A has been further subdivided as S.No.684/1 and S.Nos.684/3 to 684 /11. So far as the extent mentioned in the plaint is concerned, there is no change. The plaintiffs contended that due to the mistake committed by the Revenue Officials, the patta was granted in the name of Varadarajulu, the father of the first plaintiff, for S.No.684/11. The plaintiffs sought for deletion of S.No.684/1 in the plaint schedule. Though the court should not be liberal in allowing the amendment application after the commencement of the trial, when the situation arises for amendment and if the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, the amendment of the plaint can be granted even after the commencement of the trial.
10. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have clearly established that they came to know about the mistake committed by the Revenue Officials only by the reply given by the Deputy Tahsildar, Chengalpattu, dated 05.11.2012, which was marked as Ex.P2. Since the Survey Number of 684/1B has not been subdivided, the plaintiffs have wrongly mentioned S.No.684/11 in the plaint schedule. S.No.684/11 is the subdivided survey number of old S.No.684/1A. This fact was informed by the Deputy Tahsildar, Chengalpattu in Ex.P2 reply.
11. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to know about the correct Survey Number after the subdivision. That apart, the patta was also wrongly issued in the name of Varadarajulu in respect of S.No.684/11, which fact was also came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only after Ex.P2 reply.
12. Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratios laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the facts and circumstances of he present case are totally different, the said judgments are not applicable. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. The Trial Court, taking into consideration all these aspects, rightly allowed the application.
14. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.03.2017 Index : Yes/No Rj To The Principal Sub Court Chengalpattu.
M. DURAISWAMY,J., Rj Pre-delivery Order in C.R.P.(PD)No.335 of 2016 & C.M.P.Nos.1778 & 1779 of 2016 22.03.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in