Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/1303/2023 of Thangapandi Vs Mariyappan on 22 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 1303 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6461 of 2023
{CNR: HCMD010422362023}
Case QR
1. Thangapandi
... Petitioner(s)
–
Vs. -
1. Mariyappan
... Respondent(s)
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated 15-02-2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.449 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi and set aside the same and allow this civil revision petition and pass such further of other suitable order / orders as this Hon`ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner
: Mr.S.Selvakumar
For Respondent
: Mr.H.Arumugam
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:26 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 15-02-2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.449 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi.
2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S. No. 449 of 2018 seeking declaration and recovery of possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to amend the description of the schedule property.
3. According to the petitioner, when he filed the affidavit, the property was erroneously mentioned as the “first schedule property” instead of the “third schedule property” due to a typographical error. While the petitioner was working at Tirunelveli, the respondent/defendant encroached upon the third schedule property and used the same as a cow shed. When the petitioner requested the respondent/defendant to remove the encroachment, he refused to do so. Therefore, it is necessary to evict the respondent/defendant from the suit property and hand over possession of the same to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2 of 2022 seeking amendment of the pleadings.
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:26 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2023
4. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any document to establish that, if the proposed amendment were allowed, it would alter the cause of action. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the said I.A. was filed belatedly and that the petitioner has not produced any document to establish that the property belongs to him. Originally, the property, which is presently in his possession, was allotted to him pursuant to an oral partition. It is therefore contended that the present petition has been filed with the intention of interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit is filed for declaration and injunction and it is true that the amendment petition was filed by the petitioner only when the suit was posted for plaintiff's side evidence. The amendment was only sought to correct a typographical error, wherein the suit schedule was mentioned as First Schedule property instead of third schedule property. If the amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to either party in the present case. The petitioner has claimed that the suit property was
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:26 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2023 allotted to him pursuant to a partition. The respondent, on the other hand, has also claimed that the suit property belongs to him and was allotted to him under a partition. Both parties are at liberty to establish their respective title by producing the necessary documents and other supporting evidence. Therefore, allowing the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondent.
7. It is true that the said I.A. was filed belatedly. However, the Court has the discretion to allow an application for amendment if such amendment is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the dispute. In the present case, allowing the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondent. Hence, the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial court is hereby set aside, and I.A. No. 2 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint in terms of the amendment sought for and shall carry out the amendment within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:26 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2023 To
1. The Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:26 pm )
C.R.P(MD)No.1303 of 2023 R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns CRP(MD) NO. 1303 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.6461 of 2023 22.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 04:07:26 pm )