Madras High Court
CRP/4273/2025 of AMUDHA Vs PURUSOTHAMAN on 12 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.4273 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.21938 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA012030682025}
1. Amudha
W/o.Srinivasan
2. Mala
W/o.Elangovan
3. Radhamani
W/o.Karunanithi
4. Shankari
W/o.Ravi
..Petitioners
Vs
1. Purusothaman
S/o.Ramasamy
2. Senbagavalli
W/o.Sambandham
3. Balamurugan
S/o.Sambandham
4. Palraj
S/o.Sambandham
5. The Sub-Registrar,
Office at Lalkhan Street,
Chidambaram 608 001.
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16/12/2024 passed in I.A.No.451 of 2023 in O.S.No.122
of 2022 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram.
For Petitioners :
Ms.C.Jayachitra
For Respondents :
No appearance [R1, R2 & R4]
Mrs.D.Chitra Maragatham
Government Advocate [R5]
*****
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 against the order dated 16.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.451 of 2023 in O.S.No.122 of 2022 by the learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram, wherein the application filed by the first respondent/first defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint in order to include two properties, came to be allowed by the Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate appearing for fifth respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.122 of 2022 seeking the relief of partition. The first respondent/first defendant filed I.A.No.451 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that two of the properties were left out and those properties must also be included in the plaint schedule. This application was allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.
4. In the considered view of this Court, the defendant cannot seek for amending the plaint and if at all any property is left out, the defendant can always file a counter claim and include the property. The law on this issue was discussed by this Court in detail in a recent judgment in V.Senthilkumar v. Lakshmi [2026 (4) LW 368]. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 16.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.451 of 2023 in O.S.No.122 of 2022 by the learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram, is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The Sub Judge, Chidambaram.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm Civil Revision Petition No.4273 of 2025 12-11-2026