CRP/953/2023 of M.K.MUTHUSAMY Vs S.PONNUSAMY on 5 October 2026

ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 05.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.754 of 2016 in O.S.No.60 of 2013 and order dated 12.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2022 in I.A.No.754 of 2016 in O.S.No.60 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Rasipuram.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and carefully perused the

CRP No. 953 of 2023

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

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2013, originally seeking for the relief of declaration of the right of usage of the cart track and for permanent injunction. Subsequently, an amendment application was filed pursuant to the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.169 of 2016 and the plaintiff sought for the relief of mandatory injunction for the removal of the iron gate put up by the 4th defendant in S.No.25/1A. This application was allowed.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.754 of 2016 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the plaint in order to bring in the necessary averments to substantiate the relief of mandatory injunction sought for against the 4th defendant.

5. The Court below passed an order on 05.02.2019 in I.A.No.754 of 2016 and permitted only the 7th paragraph of the proposed amendment, subject to the payment of cost of a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, CRP No.953 of 2023 has been filed before this Court.

CRP No. 953 of 2023

6. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.10 of 2022 before the Court below under Sections 151 and 152 of C.P.C., on the ground that the Court below has erroneously assumed that Paragraphs 1 to 6 has already been incorporated into the plaint and permitted only the inclusion of the 7th Paragraph in the plaint. This application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 12.01.2023 on the ground that the earlier order passed in IA.No754 of 2016 has not been put to challenge and the present application is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, CRP No.376 of 2023 has been filed before this Court.

7. It is evident that the petitioner/plaintiff had already sought for an amendment to include the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the iron gate that was put up in S.No.25/1A by the 4th defendant, who had purchased the property from defendants 1 to 3. The application in I.A.No.754 of 2016 was filed only to include the necessary averments in the plaint to support the relief of mandatory injunction. Accordingly, the petitioner/plaintiff sought to include seven paragraphs in the plaint. However, the Court below while passing the order in I.A.No.754 of 2016, rendered a finding that the amendment sought for by the petitioner was already included in the plaint, except Paragraph No.7 and therefore, proceeded to allow the 7th paragraph alone to be incorporated in the plaint and also imposed a cost of Rs.2,000/-

CRP No. 953 of 2023

8. The relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff for mandatory injunction has already been allowed and the plaint has been amended. The present exercise pertains to the averments that are made by the plaintiff to sustain the said relief. According to the plaintiff, the necessary averments are found at Paragraphs 4 to 7 and whereas, the Court below has allowed Paragraph No.7 alone to be incorporated in the plaint. If the relief has already been included in the prayer portion, the averments supporting the relief must obviously form part of the plaint, failing which the plaintiff cannot get the relief. It is altogether a different question as to whether the plaintiff will be entitled for the relief and that is a matter to be decided by the Court below on merits. Therefore, by including Paragraphs 4, 5 & 6 as averments in the plaint will not, in any way, cause prejudice, since the relevant relief has already available in the plaint. Therefore, the averments made in Paragraphs 4 to 6 in the application filed in I.A.No.754 of 2016 should be incorporated in the plaint.

9. The order passed by the Court below in IA No.754 of 2016 in O.S.No.60 of 2013 accordingly requires the interference of this Court and the same is hereby modified.

10. The order that was passed in I.A.No.10 of 2022 is more a consequence of the earlier order passed in I.A.No.754 of 2016. If the order passed in I.A.No.754 of 2016 is modified, no further orders are required to be passed in

CRP No. 953 of 2023

I.A.No.10 of 2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in CRP No.376 of 2023.

11. In the result, CRP No.953 of 2023 is allowed. The same order will cover CRP No.376 of 2023. Considering the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2013 onwards, there shall be a direction to the District Munsif, Rasipuram, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.60 of 2013, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and file a compliance report before this Court. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR

CRP No. 953 of 2023

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. SSR To The District Munsif, Rasipuram. CRP No. 953 of 2023 AND CRP NO. 376 OF 2023 & CMP NO. 3083 OF 2023 05-10-2026