Madras High Court
CRP/6815/2026 of K. Vasudevan Vs The Commissioner on 2 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6815 of 2026
and CMP No. 29303 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012382982026}
K. Vasudevan
S/o. Late. Ramakutty,
No.21, O.No.6/1,
Venkatachalapathy 2nd Street,
Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai 030.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 034.
2. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Regional Transport Office Road, Nehru Nagar Phase 2, Sathuvachari, Vellore 632 009.
3. The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, District Collectorate Campus, Kancheepuram 631 501
4. The Executive Officer
Ekambarnathar Thirukovil Devasthanam
Kancheepuram.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the above Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 09.09.2026 passed in IA No.7 of 2026 in OS No.6434 of 2024
on the file of the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and pass such further or other orders as this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.K.A.Mariappan
For Respondent(s):
Mrs.D.Chitra Maragatham
Government Advocate
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
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated on 09.09.2026 passed in IA No.7 of 2026 in OS No.6434 of 2024 on the file of the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the short and long cause title and implead the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Kancheepuram, as the defendant in the place of Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Vellore, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and carefully perused the 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.6434 of 2024 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. When the suit was filed, Joint Commissioner, HR & CE, Vellore was impleaded as the 2nd defendant. This was objected to by the HR & CE Department right from the beginning by way of filing a written statement. An issue was also framed in that regard and the trial commenced and PW1 was also cross-examined in this regard and at that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed IA No.7 of 2026 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the short and long cause title by including the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Kancheepuram in the place of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Vellore. The same came be to dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The main ground urged on the side of the petitioner is that due to oversight such a mistake had taken place.
5. Per contra, on the side of the respondents, it is submitted that this was an issue which are raised right from the beginning by the HR & CE Department and that an issue had also been framed in this regard and questions have been put in the cross-examination and thereafter, the present application was filed. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff was right through aware about the fact that it is only the Joint Commissoner, Kancheepuram, who must be made as a party and whereas, for reasons best known to the plaintiff, he continued to prosecute the suit by showing the Joint Commissioner, Vellore, as a defendant.
6. In the considered view of this Court, once an amendment is sought for post trial, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., must be strictly applied and the plaintiff must establish that, in spite of showing due diligence, such an amendment was not able to be sought for at the earliest point of time. This requirement is missing in the present case and therefore, the Court below had dismissed the application. The said order does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.
7. If according to the petitioner, the suit cannot be prosecuted with this defect, it is always left open to the petitioner/plaintiff to file an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of C.P.C., to seek for the permission to withdraw the suit and to file a fresh suit. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this Civil Revision Petition.
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
To
1. The IVth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai .
2. The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, Regional Transport Office Road, Nehru Nagar Phase 2, Sathuvachari, Vellore 632 009.
4. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, District Collectorate Campus, Kancheepuram 631 501
5. The Executive Officer Ekambarnathar Thirukovil Devasthanam Kancheepuram.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR CRP No. 6815 of 2026 02-11-2026