P SUNDARAPARIPOORANAM Vs. T V S MANI
LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-91
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 26,2019

P SUNDARAPARIPOORANAM Appellant
VERSUS
T V S MANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.S. Ramesh, J. - (1.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction as well as for mandatory injunction for removal of a gate put up in -B- Schedule property, who had filed an interim application in I.A.No.14782 of 2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC., seeking for amendment of certain portions of the plaint as well as the other reliefs sought for therein. The trial Court had rejected the said application on 12.09.2014, which is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.
(2.) Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they are the absolute owners of the property in T.S.No.3/1, Block No.64 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Chennai, measuring 4945 Sq. Feet. Since the respondents herein had attempted to encroach into the petitioner-s property, they had filed a suit in C.S.No.177 of 2008 and an order of interim injunction has also been granted therein. The respondents herein claim to have a permissive right pursuant to the licence agreement over the properties in Survey No.37/2 & 38/2. Since the licence agreement itself had expired long back and also since the fifth respondent has denied the petitioner-s title over the said property, he had filed the present application seeking for amendment of the plaint. Since the proposed amendment does not either change the nature of the case or the cause of action, the amendment petition requires to be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC., the amendment of the plaint can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and since the fifth respondent herein had specifically denied the plaintiff-s title, there is no bar for filing the application. As such, the question of limitation will not arise. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in Chitra V. Kannan, 2015 1 CTC 820and submitted that since the application under Order 6 Rule 17 has been filed, within a period of 3 years from the date of written statement, the same is not barred under limitation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.