MINOR ANITHA Vs. RAJAMANICKAM
LAWS(MAD)-2014-7-26
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 10,2014

Minor Anitha Appellant
VERSUS
RAJAMANICKAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the original suit filed this revision petition against the order dated 14.11.2007 made in I.A.No.391 of 2006 in O.S.No.399 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Polur.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the plaintiffs in the original suit are referred as revision petitioners and the defendants in the original suit are referred as respondents hereafter. The revision petitioners filed a suit for partition of their 6/20 shares in three items of the suit schedule property. In the above said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 15.04.2004. As per preliminary decree, an application in I.A.No.266 of 2005 was filed for passing final decree. In the above said final decree proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he had filed his report. After that the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.391 of 2006 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the schedule of properties and other coloumns in the plaint as follows: - ''LANGUAGE ''
(3.) IN the above said affidavit filed by the revision petitioners, it is stated that a preliminary decree was passed on 15.04.2004 and as per the preliminary decree, the revision petitioners have filed an application for passing final decree in I.A.No.266 of 2005 in which, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed. In the above said Commissioner filed his report in which, it is stated that in the 1st item, there is no tiled house and it is vacant site and also the eastern boundary not tallied with plaint schedule. It is also averred in the affidavit that the Commissioner also stated in his report that as per preliminary decree, 2nd item is vacant site but, in the above said item, there is a concrete house. It is also stated in the affidavit that the respondents have changed the super -structure as found by the Commissioner, since the revision petitioners are living far away from the properties and hence, they are not aware of the fact and also unable to inform to the counsel immediately and therefore, prayed for to amend the plaint as already stated.;


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