CRP(MD)/2491/2026 of M/s.Asian Fabrics Pvt Ltd. Vs Pappayee on 9 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 15.06.2026 passed in IA.No.2 of 2024 in OS.No.285 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Karur.

2. The petitioner is the 19th defendant, and the 1st respondent is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 19 are defendants 1 to 18 in the suit. The

1st respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit against her brothers, sisters, and other purchasers who had allegedly purchased the joint family properties. After the examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was completed, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking to amend the southern boundary of the first item of the suit property by substituting “Karur–Erode Road” for “the land belonging to Subramani and Samiappan Vagayara.”

3. According to the petitioner, the alleged error in the description of the southern boundary had already been brought to the notice of the plaintiff in the written statement filed in the year 2013. Despite having knowledge of the alleged error, the plaintiff did not take any immediate steps to amend the plaint. The petitioner contended that, after the commencement of the trial and the examination of the witnesses, the proposed amendment was not permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He further contended that, even if the Court were inclined to allow the amendment, it must be satisfied that, despite exercising due diligence, the plaintiff could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. According to the petitioner, having been put on notice of his objection as early as 2013, the plaintiff could not now contend that the proposed amendment was sought after exercising due diligence.

4. The petitioner further contended that the plaintiff had admitted that the properties belonging to Subramani and Samiappan Vagayara were situated on the southern side of the suit property. Therefore, the proposed amendment substituting “Karur–Erode Road” as the southern boundary was impermissible. He submitted that the amendment petition lacked merit. However, the trial Court, without properly considering the objections raised by the petitioner, allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that P.W.1 was examined on 19.07.2024. Thereafter, P.W.2 was examined and cross- examined on 09.08.2024. When the matter was posted for further evidence on 02.09.2024, the plaintiff filed the petition seeking amendment of the plaint.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that, during the cross- examination of the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner questioned her regarding the southern boundary of the first item of the suit property, to which she replied that the southern boundary was the Karur–Erode Road. Subsequently, P.W.2 was also questioned regarding the southern boundary of the suit property, and she likewise stated that the Karur–Erode Road was situated on the southern side.

7. The plaintiff contended that, while discussing the matter with her counsel, she brought to his attention that, owing to an inadvertent error and oversight while typing the description of the southern boundary of the first item of the suit property in the plaint, the boundary had been wrongly stated as the land belonging to Subramani and Samiappan Vagayara instead of the Karur–Erode Road. She therefore sought amendment of the plaint to correct the alleged typographical error in the description of the southern boundary, along with the amendment relating to her share. However, the petitioner disputed the plaintiff’s claim with regard to her share.

8. It is well settled that, ordinarily, an application for amendment of the pleadings cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the requirements prescribed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are satisfied. In the present case, however, it is not disputed that the description of the southern boundary was incorrect. Further, when the petitioner repeatedly questioned the plaintiff regarding the southern boundary of the suit property, she consistently answered that the Karur–Erode Road was situated on the southern side. The plaintiff filed the amendment petition to rectify the alleged error in the description of the boundary. Such an amendment would not, by itself, prejudice the rights of the defendants in the suit property.

9. The petitioner contended that he had purchased a portion of the property from a previous owner, who had, in turn, purchased it from one of the co-owners of the properties, and that his rights would have to be determined in accordance with law. However, the petitioner has not demonstrated how the proposed amendment would prejudice his rights in the suit property at the stage of passing the final decree. Since the amendment is sought only to correct the description of the southern boundary, it would neither alter the cause of action nor introduce an entirely new case. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment petition. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

09.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM To The Principal Subordinate Court, Karur.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2491 of 2026 09.09.2026