CRP No. 3445 of 2025 ____________ Page No.1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP Nos. 3445 & 4049 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 18765 OF 2025 Govinda Mandiri ... Petitioner in both CRPs Vs 1. C.Anandan 2. A.Rajan 3. A.Prabakaran ... Respondents in both CRPs Prayer in CRP No.3445 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal in I.A.No.02/2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Tirupathur District and thereby allow the above Civil Revision Petition. Prayer in CRP No.4049 of 2025 : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal in I.A.No.03/2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 dated 16.07.2025 passed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3445 of 2025 ____________ Page No.2 of 6 by the Learned Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Tirupathur District and thereby allow the above Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan For Respondents : Ms.Elizabeth Ravi [R1] No appearance [R2 & R3] ***** COMMON ORDER Since both the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the very same suit in O.S.No.31 of 2017, they are disposed of by way of this common order. 2. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned common order dated 16.07.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 in O.S.No.31 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Tirupathur District. 3. In the impugned common order, the applications filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, seeking amendment of the plaint as well as to re-open the evidence, has been dismissed on the ground that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3445 of 2025 ____________ Page No.3 of 6 the applications were filed belatedly by the petitioner, without showing sufficient cause for the said delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there became a necessity for the petitioner to file amendment application, since there is a discrepancy in the extent of the suit schedule property and since there is a change in pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. 5. Admittedly, the applications were filed by the petitioner only after the trial got concluded and the arguments were also completed by the respective counsels. In the written statement filed by the 1st respondent, the discrepancies with regard to the suit claim arising out of the suit schedule property were pointed out by the 1st respondent. The said written statement was filed on 11.08.2017, however the applications, which culminated in the impugned common order were filed only in the year 2023, after a lapse of six years from the date, when the written statement was filed. In the respective affidavits filed in support of the respective applications, the reason for delay given by the petitioner is that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3445 of 2025 ____________ Page No.4 of 6 petitioner was not having knowledge about the defences taken by the 1st respondent and the petitioner has also put the blame on the counsel for the delay in filing the applications. The trial court under the impugned common order has rejected the contentions of the petitioner while dismissing the applications by holding that the applications cannot be entertained, since it has been filed belatedly. It is also not in dispute that the applications were filed only after the trial got concluded in the suit and both the counsels had argued the matter. An application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment though can be entertained at any stage of proceedings, in cases, where the applications have been filed after issues are framed, a party seeking to amend the plaint will have to show sufficient cause by establishing due diligence. 6. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not satisfied the said test as rightly pointed out by the trial court in the impugned common order. This Court does not find any merit in these revisions as the trial court has rightly rejected the applications filed by the petitioner for the reasons stated supra. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3445 of 2025 ____________ Page No.5 of 6 7. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp To The Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Tirupathur District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3445 of 2025 ____________ Page No.6 of 6 ABDUL QUDDHOSE J. sp CRP Nos. 3445 & 4049 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 18765 OF 2025 29-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis