IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.03.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN O.S.A.No.37 of 2017
1. M.Hemalatha
2. A.L.Mathialagan .. Appellants Vs.
V.Balasundaram .. Respondent PRAYER: Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.11.2016 made in A.No.3423 of 2016 in C.S.No.313 of 2013.
For Appellants : Mr.V.M.Venkataramana JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Acting Chief Justice) The appeal is filed against the order dated 22.11.2016 made in A.No.3423 of 2016 in C.S.No.313 of 2013.
2. The appellants are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money based on promissory notes.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed A.No.3423 of 2016 for amendment of the plaint. The learned Single Judge finding that the new amendment does not introduce either a new case or give rise to a new cause of action, allowed the application. Calling into question the said order, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants on the ground that the amendment sought to be made does not pertain to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and that the amendment sought to be made is after commencement of the trial.
4. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
5. At the outset, it may be noted that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is for recovery of money based on promissory notes and the character of the said suit remains unaltered even after the amendment as ordered by the learned Single Judge. By virtue of the amendment all that the respondent/plaintiff wanted to bring to light is the transactions between his family and the appellants/ defendants during the years 2005 to 2011. In other words, additional facts are added to his plaint averments. It does not in any way constitute addition of a new cause of action nor it is changing the cause of action originally pleaded. In any event, the burden of proof is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove the execution of such documents and passing of consideration.
6. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.3317 of 2017 is closed.
Index : No Internet : Yes sasi To:
The Sub Assistant Registrar Original Side High Court, Madras.
(H.G.R., ACJ.) (R.M.D., J.) 01.03.2017 HULUVADI G.RAMESH,ACJ.
AND R.MAHADEVAN,J.
(sasi) O.S.A.No.37 of 2017 01.03.2017 http://judis.nic.in