CRP/3170/2025 of SHIVAM CHARITABLE TRUST Vs K.SADASIVAM on 7 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024, in OS.No.126 of 206, dated 19.09.2024, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem, wherein the applications filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of plaint and for filing reply statement to the written statement came to be dismissed by the Court below mainly on the ground that these applications were filed after a lapse of eight years and when the trial has already commenced.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents.

3. This Court carefully considered the materials available on record and this Court also went through the order passed by the court below.

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )

4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit in OS.No.126 of 2016, seeking for the relief of declaration and for various other consequential reliefs. The pleadings were complete and the trial commenced. When PW.1 was in the witness box, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed IA.No.4 of 2024, for filing reply statement and IA.No.5 of 2024 for amendment of plaint. The Court below after finding that there are no merits in these applications, also gave a finding that the applications have been filed after a lapse of eight years from the date of filing of the written statement and that to during the cross examination of PW.1.

5. In the case in hand, admittedly, the written statement was filed by the defendants in the year 2016 and IA.No.4 of 2024, has been filed to file a reply statement to the written statement after eight years. The Court below has rightly rejected this application on the ground of delay. There was absolutely no reason assigned as to why it took eight years for the plaintiffs to file the application to file reply statement.

6. Insofar as IA.No.5 of 2024 is concerned, it was an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint and the plaintiffs sought for the following amendment:

1. At Para-15 at the beginning add "Indeed what has been stated in paras 9 to 14 above clearly reveals the factum of abuse of the 1s Plaintiff Trust which has resulted in breach of trust by the 1s Defendant which has been accepted and

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )

encouraged by the other defendants in aiding the breach and hence they cannot continue as trustees of the 1s Plaintiff Trust in consequence of which direction are sought for administration of the trust also".

2. In the prayer column at para-18 (a) add after 1" Plaintiff Trust "and consequently directing the Plaintiffs 2 to 5 to administer the 1s Plaintiff Trust" is to be added.

7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiffs also filed IA.No.7 of 2024, seeking for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, where they have sought for further reliefs and this application is pending. In the meantime, PW.1 to PW.5 have been examined and the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was closed on 24.03.2025. Thereafter DW.1 was examined in chief and has been elaborately cross examined.

8. Apart from the above, the applications were filed on 29.04.2024, and it was dismissed by the Court below on 19.09.2024. Both the CRPs were filed only on 11.7.2025 again with an enormous delay.

9. Taking into consideration the above developments and also considering the fact that the subsequent application has also been filed for amendment of plaint, no useful purpose will be served in interfering with the order passed by the Court below more particularly since the amendment was sought for at the post trial stage and this Court does not find that the plaintiffs had exercised due

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )

diligence in seeking for amendment and hence the proviso to order VI Rule 17 of CPC, will come into play.

10. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court and accordingly, these CRPs are dismissed and there shall be a direction to the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, to dispose of the suit in OS.No126 of 2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

11. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )

To Principal District Judge Salem.

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 3170 of 2025 and CRP No. 3171 of 2025 07-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 01:13:53 pm )