CRP/3252/2023 of MADANLAL D. CHAWLA Vs R. BHUVANESHWARI on 12 November 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 14.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.491 of 2019 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration in respect of the suit Schedule-B property, namely, the pathway, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the suit pathway and interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint by including the following amendments: “1. In Valuation para IX, after value of the suit for the purpose court fee and jurisdiction is Delete "Rs. 7,000.00" Add "Rs.9,000.00"

2. In Valuation para IX, Add after 3 "4. Value for the Relief of Mandatory Injunction to remove the Compound Wall on the Western side of the 'A' Schedule property is Rs.1000.00", in next __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023 line Add "Court Fee paid under Sec 27(c) of TNCF Act is Rs.30.00"

3. In Valuation para IX, Add after 4 "S. Value for the Relief of Mandatory Injunction to remove the Blue Colour Iron Gate on the Northern side of the 'B' Schedule property is Rs.1000.00", in next line Add "Court Fee paid under Sec 27(c) of TNCF Act is Rs.30.00"

4. Delete "Rs. 210.00" after total Court Fee paid is Add "Rs. 270.00"

5. In prayer column Add after 5 "6. Directing the defendants to remove the Compound wall on the Western side of the 'A' Schedule property to the length of 139% feet and to the breadth of 1 fect built in Hallow Bricks or permit the plaintiff to remove the same on the cost of defendants in specific period of time."

6. In prayer column Add after 6 "7. Directing the defendants to remove the Bliue Colour Iron Gate placed on the Northern side of the 'B' Schedule property to the height of 10 feet and to the breadth of 30 feet which is encroached on the suit path way or permit the plaintiff to remove the same on the cost of defendants in specific period of time."

7. After Plaint para IX Add "IX A) During the pendency of the above suit, the Defendants unlawfully constructed a Compound Wall by encroaching the common pathway on the Western Side of the suit 'A' Schedule Property to the length of 139% feet and to breadth of 1 feet built in Hallow Bricks and also erected a Blue Colour Iron Gate on the Northern Side of the suit 'B' Schedule Property to the height of 10 feet and to the breadth of 30 feet, So, __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023 that have to be removed by an order of Mandatory Injunction. Hence, the suit is amended accordingly.”

4. The reason stated in the amendment petition is that the suit was originally filed on the ground that the defendants attempted to construct a compound wall on the northern side of the common pathway and fix an iron gate across the suit Schedule-B property. At the request of the plaintiff, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the suit property and filed a report and plan. From the Commissioner's report, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants had constructed a compound wall on the western side of the 'A' Schedule property to the height of 10 feet in the common pathway and completely blocked the pathway. The Commissioner's report also revealed that a blue-coloured iron gate had been erected in front of the common pathway on the northern side of the 'B' Schedule property. Since the defendants had allegedly encroached upon the common pathway by constructing the compound wall and erecting the iron gate, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by incorporating the necessary pleadings and prayers for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the said constructions.

5. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The first defendant filed a counter-affidavit, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 10, contending that there were no pleadings in the original plaint to the effect that __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023 the defendants had attempted to encroach upon the common pathway or fix an iron gate on the northern side thereof. It was further contended that a stone revetment was already in existence even at the time when the defendants purchased the properties. The iron gate and compound wall were erected over the existing stone revetment immediately after the purchase and had been in existence for more than 12 years. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had introduced an entirely new claim by alleging that the compound wall and iron gate had been newly constructed by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and that the plaintiff came to know about the same only through the Commissioner's report. It was further contended that the alleged pathway exclusively belonged to the defendants and that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation. The defendants also contended that the plaintiff was attempting to introduce a new case and fill up the lacunae in the original pleadings. Therefore, they sought the dismissal of the amendment petition.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the rival submissions, allowed the application for amendment. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents and perused the materials available on record. __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023

8. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners would submit that the plaintiff, in Paragraph VI of the plaint, had categorically stated that a stone revetment had been constructed to the height of two feet along the entire length of the suit pathway. In response thereto, the defendants, in Paragraph VIII of their written statement, had specifically stated as follows: "The said stone revetment was available even at the time of sale of the entire property by these defendants from the true and absolute owners and this stone revetment is there for more than 12 years and it is the boundary for their lands on the Eastern side."

9. The learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiff had falsely stated in the amendment petition that she came to know about the compound wall and iron gate only through the Commissioner's report. According to the defendants, the compound wall and iron gate had been in existence for more than 12 years even prior to the institution of the suit, and the plaintiff had deliberately described the compound wall as a stone revetment in the original plaint. By way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff was attempting to introduce an entirely new claim, which is not permissible. It was further contended that the Trial Court, without properly appreciating the materials already available on record, had erroneously concluded that the objections raised by the defendants were matters to be decided during trial. __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent would submit that, at the time of institution of the suit, there was no compound wall or iron gate in the suit Schedule-B property and that only a stone revetment was in existence. It was only upon receipt of the Commissioner's report that the plaintiff came to know that a compound wall measuring 10 feet in height had been constructed and a blue-coloured iron gate had been erected in the suit Schedule-B property, thereby completely obstructing the common pathway. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the proposed amendment was necessary for effectively adjudicating the disputes between the parties.

11. Admittedly, there is no specific averment in the original plaint regarding the existence of a compound wall or an iron gate. On the other hand, the plaintiff had referred to the existence of a stone revetment in the suit Schedule-B property as on 07.10.2019. The defendants, in their written statement, had also not specifically referred to the existence of a compound wall or an iron gate. They had only stated that the stone revetment had been in existence for more than 12 years. However, contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendants before this Court, the defendants, in their counter filed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 before the Trial Court, had specifically stated that the iron gate and compound wall were erected over the existing stone __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023 revetment immediately after the purchase of the properties and had been in existence for more than 12 years.

12. The above facts clearly indicate that the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff had deliberately described the compound wall as a stone revetment in the original plaint cannot be accepted at this stage. Admittedly, the trial has not yet commenced. It is well settled that, before commencement of trial, an application for amendment of pleadings is required to be considered liberally, provided that the proposed amendment does not introduce an entirely new case or fundamentally alter the nature and character of the suit. In the present case, the proposed amendment does not introduce a new cause of action or alter the fundamental nature and character of the suit. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the correctness of the rival claims can be determined only after a full-fledged trial. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference.

13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the fair and decreetal order dated 14.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.491 of 2019 on the file of the learned I-Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, is hereby confirmed. The defendants are granted liberty to raise all their __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023 objections by filing an additional written statement and canvass the same before the Trial Court during trial. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KKN __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023 To The I-Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023 R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. KKN CRP No. 3252 of 2023 12-11-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )