CRP/2583/2025 of J.BASKARAN Vs J.SHANTHI on 15 October 2026

Order

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in IA.No.4 of 2023 in OS.No.772 of 2012, on the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore dated 24.03.2025, wherein the application filed by the 1st respondent / plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint came to be allowed by the Court below.

2. Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.

3. The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit in OS No.772 of 2012 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of a 1/3rd share in the suit property and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was at the stage of examination of PW1 and at that stage, IA No.4 of 2023 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking for the following amendments:- 6[A]. The plaintiff states that father of plaintiff Janakiraman and his sons i.e., Defendant No.1 and 2 herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession against K.Jayaraman and others in OS No.173 /1994 for share in the schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendants in the said suit entered into a compromise and filed a compromise petition U/O 23 R 3 R/W Section 151 CPC. In the said compromise petition, it is mentioned that plaintiffs and defendants are the sons and grandsons of Kempe Gowdar and Anusuyammal, to safeguard the interest of the family and as per the settlement deed executed by Kempe Gowdar to Anusuyammal are the absolute owners of the suit mentioned properties after the life time of the Janakiraman It is submitted that in the said suit the plaintiff was not made a party, plaintiff was not aware of the compromise petition entered by the parties and the said compromise petition is collusive compromise and same is not binding on the plaintiff and the compromise decree is not valid and it is opposed to the law. The plaintiff is entitled for partition in respect of the share of Janakiraman and his sons. Defendant No.1 and 2 herein have played fraud and by misleading the Court and got the final decree drawn on the basis of compromise petition. 6[B] “ it is pertinent to mention herein that even in the year 1994, the Hindu Succession Act (T.N.Amendment Act] 1989 was prevailing as per Section 29 A of the Act, wherein, it is clearly held that the unmarried daughters are entitled for equal share with that of the sons” Para 11 of 6th line in plaint, ADD: as Rs.10,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. DETAILS OF VALUATION Add: Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction for the relief (f) is Rs.1,000/- Court fee paid thereon U/s.27(c) is 75.50 -------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. Rs.5,04,000/- 1,052.00 -------------------------------------------------- In the prayer Column (b)

b) for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to hand over the key of locker ADD No C88 of M/s.The Coimbatore City Co- operative Bank Limited to the plaintiff instead of Karur Vysya Bank Limited.

4. The Court below, by an order dated 24.05.2025 allowed the application on the ground that the amendment does not change the character of the suit and that the amendment is more in the nature of a legal right that is claimed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below completely disregarded the proviso added to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which makes it clear that when an amendment is sought for post trial, the Court must satisfy itself that the plaintiff was prosecuting the suit with due diligence and inspite of the same, was not able to amend the plaint. The Court below has not even gone into this issue and has merely extracted some Supreme Court judgements and passed an order.

6. The first amendment that has been sought for by the plaintiff is by raising a ground that the compromise decree that was passed in OS No.173 of 1994 is a collusive decree and it is not binding on the plaintiff.

7. On a careful reading of the plaint that was originally filed in the suit, not a single averment has been made in this regard and for the first time, such a plea is sought to be brought forth by way of amending the plaint.

8. It is now too well settled that inconsistent pleas can be taken by the defendant. However, the plaintiff must stand or fall based on the averments made in the plaint and inconsistent pleas can never be allowed insofar as the plaintiff is concerned. At the best, the plaintiff will be allowed only to make an alternative plea.

9. The first amendment that was sought for by the plaintiff virtually changes the basis of claim made by the plaintiff by questioning a compromise decree passed in OS No.173 of 1994 for the first time by filing the amendment application. The Court below has not applied its mind to this amendment sought for by the plaintiff. Hence, the first amendment sought for by the plaintiff by adding Paragraph 6A is wholly unsustainable.

10. Insofar as the other amendments are concerned, it is more in the nature of elaborative pleas that have already been taken in the plaint and these amendments does not in any way change the character of the suit or will put the defendants to prejudice. Therefore, the amendments sought for by adding Paragraph 6B, amending the details of valuation and modifying prayer Column (b) can be allowed.

11. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below is set aside insofar as allowing the application for amendment to add

Paragraph 6A. The order is sustained insofar as the other amendments sought for by the plaintiff are concerned.

12. Any observations made in the present Civil Revision Petition will not have any bearing when the Court below decides the suit on merits. There shall be a direction to the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, to dispose of OS.No.772 of 2012, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To, III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore,

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 2583 of 2025 AND CMP NO. 14703 OF 2025 15-10-2026