CRP/5885/2026 of Balakrishnan (Died) 1. Moorthy Vs Soundararajan on 6 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.338 of 2013 dated 04.06.2026 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.338 of 2013 initially seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the 'B' schedule property is part and parcel of the 'A' schedule property and to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for a permanent injunction.

4. Earlier an application came to be filed in I.A.No.166 of 2020 to amend the prayer and the same was allowed. As per the said amendment, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of plaintiff’s title over the 'B' schedule property, which is part and parcel of the 'A' schedule property and for permanent injunction in respect of 'A' schedule property against the defendants. The plaintiff did not describe the 'B' schedule property as a Government property, instead he claimed that the 'B' schedule property is a new landscape created and formed from the ‘A’ schedule property by the mountain river and floods which washed away the soil on either side of the bank.

5. The plaintiff once again filed I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.338 of 2013 seeking for amendment of plaint by taking a stand that the earlier Advocate had wrongly included declaration in respect of the 'B' schedule property and that since 'B' schedule property is a poromboke property, the petitioner/plaintiff sought for an amendment to the effect that permanent injunction is now sought for only insofar as 'B' schedule property is concerned.

6. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the amendment sought for by the petitioner virtually changes the entire nature of the suit and a preliminary issue has been raised in respect of the very nature of the 'B' schedule property. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J gm/ksk

7. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner/plaintiff has been changing the stand at every stage with respect to the nature of 'B' schedule property. This is the third amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff and the entire blame is put on the Advocate, who represented the petitioner/plaintiff. As rightly held by the Court below, the nature of amendment sought for virtually changes the entire character of the suit. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court and accordingly, the same is sustained. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm/ksk To The Additional District Munsif, Vellore. Civil Revision Petition No.5885 of 2026