C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.04.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18140 of 2022 Anunciya ... Petitioner Vs Charles Arokyasamy ... Respondent **** Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order of Additional District Munsif Court at Jayankondam dated 02.09.2022 made in I.A. No.01 of 2019 in O.S. No.82 of 2015. **** For Petitioner : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.K.M.Haresh for M/s.P.V.Law Associates For Respondent : Mr.K.P.P.Raja Raja Chozhan ________ Page 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 O R D E R This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Jayankondam dated 02.09.2022 made in I.A. No.01 of 2019 in O.S. No.82 of 2015. The revision petitioner herein is the the plaintiff in the above suit. 2. Mr.P.Valliappan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the suit was filed in O.S. No.82 of 2015 against the respondent herein, who is the defendant in the said suit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. 3. The main contention of the learned senior counsel is that the subject matter of the suit devolves around the settlement deed, which was executed by Periyanayagam, who is the father of the plaintiff and the defendant dated 18.07.2014. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of this court with reference to the schedule, where the schedule is extracted hereunder: "mhpaY}h; hp/o Mz;oklk; rg;hp tujuh$d; ngl;il fpuhkj;jpy; khjh nfhtpy; bjUtpy; ej;jk; rh;nt 81-2 V?3?75-y; nuhl;Lf;F (bjw;F) ________ Page 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 rhh;y!; kw;Wk; fz;zd; kidf;F (fpHf;F) me;mjhzp rhkp kizf;Fk; (tlf;F) gpynte;jpud; kidf;F (nkw;F) ,jpy; fpH 31/08 bjd; tly; 184 5718/72 rJuoa[s;s fhyp kiza[lDk; ,jpy; cs;s giHa tPLk; 19/12/13 njjpapy; nfhh;l; Kj;jpiua[k; vd; ifbaGj;J nghl;Lf; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ/" Whereas in the prayer, the suit schedule property was mentioned as Survey No.283/21 (Old Survey No.81/3Part). 4. 4. The learned senior counsel further contended that there is a discrepancy with regard to survey number mentioned in the settlement deed as well as in the prayer and had filed an amendment petition, which was numbered as I.A. No.1 of 2019 and the trial court, had dismissed the same taking into consideration that the application was filed 7 years belatedly, that too after a finding was given by the Advocate-Commissioner and that it is an after-thought to correct the mistake crept in at the time of filing the suit. ________ Page 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 5. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to avoid multiplicity of suits, an amendment petition shall be allowed. 6. He has also relied on a judgment of this court in Muthusamy v. Loganathan reported in 2021(4) CTC 699, wherein this court held as follows: "19. The plaintiff had pleaded and disclosed the settlement deeds, which he seeks to be declared as null and void in the plaint. The amendment relates back to that pleading. If the plaintiff had suppressed the said documents, and had sought partition, then, he can never introduce any prayer with respect to the said documents. However, he had disclosed the documents. The plaintiff will have to be given an opportunity to explain what exactly he meant by 'inadvertence' which he had advanced as the reason for not seeking the reliefs in the plaint in the first instance. Any explanation given will have to withstand cross-examination. The issue of limitation, therefore, becomes an intricate question of fact, which will have to be resolved first, and resolution can be done only through analysis of evidence which is adduced on this aspect." ________ Page 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would contend that the discrepancy raised by the revision petitioner was with regard to S.No.81/3. A rectification was made in the deed on 01.09.2014 where the survey number reflects as 81/2 Acres 3.75. The learned counsel further contended that, as the rectification deed has corrected the correct schedule of property, the application made by the plaintiff is only to overcome the fundamental mistake which has crept in at the time of filing the suit and by filing such an application, the revision petitioner is attempting to grab the entire suit schedule property, which was originally claimed in the suit. 8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record in the form of typed set of papers. 9. Admittedly, in a case of limitation, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, which the learned senior counsel also vehemently consented that the question of limitation is a mixture of fact and law and when an amendment petition was filed, which was not reflected in the counter filed by the respondent before the trial court in the interlocutory application, it has to be ________ Page 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 decided by the trial court by adducing oral and documentary evidence, such an exercise cannot be denied. 10. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the trial court dated 02.09.2022 made in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.82 of 2015 is hereby set aside. As the suit is of the year 2015, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date on which the amendment petition filed by the revision petitioner is allowed. The respondent is at liberty to make necessary application to defend his case through document and by filing additional written statement, if any. 11. In the above terms, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.04.2025 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Asr To Additional District Munsif Court at Jayankondam ________ Page 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 N.SENTHILKUMAR , J. Asr C.R.P. No.3417 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.18140 of 2022 17.04.2025 ________ Page 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis