Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8793 (MAD)

M. Mohan v. G. Janarthanan

2025-09-12

P B Balaji

body2025
ORDER Aggrieved by the dismissal of an amendment Application in the Civil Suit, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. Heard Mrs.Y.Kavitha, learned counsel for Mr.G.Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner, as plaintiff, has filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment. The learned counsel would state that after commencement of trial, when the plaintiff met his lawyer and they had an occasion to go through the stand of the respondent’s written statement, it came to light the respondents have challenged the title of the revision petitioner and hence, necessity arose for inclusion of a prayer for declaration of title. She would further state that the Application was filed immediately after plaintiff was cross examined by the defendants and she would therefore state that no serious prejudice would be caused, if the amendment is ordered as prayed for. 4. In support of her contentions,the learned counsel would also placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) Ragu Thilak D. John, Vs. S.Rayappan and Others, reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472 ; (ii) Pankaja and another Vs Yellappa (dead) by legal heirs and others, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 415 ; and (iii) Gul Hasan Miyan Vs. Aas Mohammed , the decision of the Patna High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.1513 of 2016 dated 29.08.2024 5. Per contra, Mr.R.Harikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the written statement was filed way back in January 2019 and the revision petitioner has been negligent in not even going through the written statement filed by the respondent. He would further state atleast when the trial commenced and the plaintiff entered the witness box, the petitioner could have realized the need for amending their plaint, but however, he has subjected himself for detailed cross examination and after rights have accrued to the respondent/defendant, the amendment application cannot be entertained. He would further state that the Trial Court has rightly found that there has been an inordinate delay and dismissed the Application, which does not warrant any interference. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 7. He would further state that the Trial Court has rightly found that there has been an inordinate delay and dismissed the Application, which does not warrant any interference. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 7. The suit is one for bare injunction and in the written statement there is a categorical denial of the title of the plaintiff. No doubt, the written statement was filed in January 2019 and there has been considerable delay in seeking amendment to include the relief of declaration of title. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ragu Thilak D.John’s case (referred herein above), held that even if there was change in nature of the suit originally filed, the dominant purpose of under Order VI Rule 17 CPC being only to minimize litigations, even if such amendment would be barred by law of limitation, should be considered liberally. 8. In Pankaja's case, (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court held that if the amendment subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, then amendment should be allowed, even though there has been delay. The Patna High Court in Gul Hasan Miyan's case, (referred herein supra), following the ratio laid down by the Hon’bel Supreme Court Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders, reported in (2022) SCC online SC 1128, held that though permitting the amendment at the stage of evidence would cause further delay, considering that the plaintiff would be the sufferer having come to the Court, held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, if the amendment is ordered, finding that the contesting respondent would have ample opportunities to rebut or controvert the plaint of the plaintiff, which is sought to be brought through amendment, by filing an additional written statement. 9. The ratio laid down in these cases, would squarely apply to the facts of the present case as well. The only ground on which, the Trial Court has refused the amendment is that there has been inordinate delay considering the fact that the written statement was filed even as early as in January 2019. 9. The ratio laid down in these cases, would squarely apply to the facts of the present case as well. The only ground on which, the Trial Court has refused the amendment is that there has been inordinate delay considering the fact that the written statement was filed even as early as in January 2019. However, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases and also followed by Patna High Court, even if the original character of the suit gets altered, from the relief of permanent injunction to the relief of declaration of title, when parties are at issue with regard to the very same subject property, by permitting amendment, it would minimize litigation as well, the amendment would certainly subserve the cause of justice. The mere fact that there has been a delay should not be put against the plaintiff. In fact, the defendant can always be compensated for the prejudice caused, if any, on account of delay, leave alone the opportunity to meet the amended portions of the plaint by filing an additional written statement. 10. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order of the Trial Court in I.A. No.4 of 2023 in O.S. No.92 of 2018 dated 18.01.2024. Application for amendment shall be allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by the revision petitioner to the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Compliance of the conditional order directing payment of Rs.5,000/- shall be reported before the Trial Court and subject to the compliance, the plaintiff shall be permitted to carry out necessary amendments in the plaint. The defendants shall be given three weeks (3) time to file the additional written statement and the Trial Court shall frame additional issues within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter and P.W.1 shall be permitted to be re-examined in respect of the amended claims and thereafter, the respondent shall have an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff as well. The Trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 11. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.