CRP/3281/2023 of P. KUPPUSAMY Vs R. VEERAN on 12 November 2026

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, allowing I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.179 of 2020, filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint.

2. The first respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: “a) declaring his title right over the mamool common pathway indicated in the plaint rough plan as “P” for free accessing of his share of the suit property and residence and,

b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and assignees from trespass into the plaintiff’s share of suit property indicated in the plaint rough plan as “C” and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his share in any manner and,

c) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the concrete pathway and aluminium sheeted bathroom indicated in the plaint rough plan as “E1” and “E2” over the common pathway constructed by the defendants and,

d) directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit.”

3. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the northern side boundary of the suit schedule property. The reason stated by him was that, at the time of execution of the settlement deed by his father in his favour, the northern side boundary was described as “LBP Vaikkalukku Therku”. Subsequently, the first respondent/plaintiff was granted patta in respect of the adjacent property extending up to the LBP Canal. Therefore, he sought to amend the northern side boundary of the suit schedule property.

4. The petitioners herein/defendants filed their counter opposing the amendment application, contending that, as per the plaintiff's own affidavit, the boundary now sought to be amended was already in existence prior to the filing of the suit, but the plaintiff purposely mentioned the wrong boundary. It was further contended that the settlement deed specifically describes the northern side boundary as LBP Vaikkal and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot now seek to introduce a different boundary by way of amendment. It was also pointed out that the alleged patta had not been produced before the Trial Court. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the amendment application.

5. The learned Trial Court, upon considering the rival submissions, found that the proposed amendment would neither introduce a new case nor give a fresh cause of action. It was further held that the amendment would not cause any serious prejudice to the defendants. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court allowed the amendment application.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the amendment application was filed after two years from the date of institution of the suit. The Trial Court failed to consider the requirement to establish that, despite due diligence, the plaintiff could not have raised the matter at earliest point of time. It was further contended that the proposed amendment would alter the scope of the suit and affect the nature of the settlement deed. Without properly considering these aspects, the Trial Court mechanically allowed the amendment application. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that the suit property originally belonged to his father, who executed settlement deeds in favour of his three sons, including the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the settlement deed, the northern side boundary has been shown as LBP Canal. Subsequently, the Government issued patta in favour of the occupants, including the plaintiff, in respect of the adjacent property. While filing the suit, due to an inadvertent mistake, the plaintiff described the northern side boundary in accordance with the settlement deed without taking into consideration of the subsequent grant of patta. It is further submitted that the proposed amendment is only to correct the boundary and the same would neither introduce a new cause of action nor alter the nature of the suit. The amendment would facilitate proper identification of the suit property and enable the Trial Court to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Hence, the learned Trial Court rightly allowed the amendment application.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 in Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents and also perused the material available on record.

10. According to the plaintiff, after the execution of the settlement deed, he was granted patta in respect of the property situated adjacent to his share of the suit property, extending up to the LBP Canal. However, inadvertently, while mentioning the northern side boundary in the plaint, he had mentioned the boundary as stated in the settlement deed. It is also relevant to note that the plaintiff, in the plaint itself, has specifically averred that he was allotted Natham patta land by the Government in the year 1991, adjacent to his share of the suit property, and that he constructed a house therein in the year 2005. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, while executing settlement deeds in favour of his three sons, his father had left an extent of 900 sq.ft. on the eastern side of the properties as a common pathway in order to avoid future disputes. According to the plaintiff, the defendants subsequently constructed a bathroom and attempted to prevent him from using the common pathway.

11. As per the averments made in the plaint, it is seen that the dispute between the parties primarily relates to the identification and enjoyment of the common pathway and the properties situated adjacent thereto. The parties have already set out their respective pleadings with regard to the identity and boundaries of the properties. In such circumstances, the proposed amendment relating to the northern side boundary would not change the nature of the suit or introduce an entirely new cause of action but, it would facilitate proper identification of the suit property and enable the Trial Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

12. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, namely, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed

(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and

(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless

(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,

(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,

(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or

(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.

(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.

(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1987)”

13. As held in the judgment, when the amendment does not introduce any new case or cause of action can be allowed. The plaintiff's contention is that he was subsequently granted patta in respect of the property situated adjacent to the suit property and that the amendment is necessary to correctly describe the northern side boundary. The amendment would assist the Court in identifying the property and effectively adjudicating the dispute between the parties. It is also an admitted fact that the trial has not commenced. The Courts are required to be liberal in its approach when the amendment is sought before the commencement of trial.

14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proposed amendment would neither change the nature of the suit nor cause any irreparable prejudice to the petitioners. On the contrary, it would enable the Trial Court to properly identify the suit property and decide the real dispute between the parties. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.179 of 2020 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-11-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Neutral Citation: Yes KKN

To The Principal District Munsif, Erode.

R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. KKN CRP No. 3281 of 2023 12 -11-2026