Case Note & Summary
The Civil Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit, challenging the order of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Kallakurichi, dated 18.02.2023, which allowed the application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) seeking amendment of the plaint. The original suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from altering the physical features of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had put up construction in the suit property, and therefore, they filed an application to amend the plaint to include a prayer for mandatory injunction. The trial court allowed the amendment. The petitioner contended that the amendment was barred by limitation because the Advocate Commissioner's report dated 13.08.2019 indicated construction activities as early as 08.08.2019, and the amendment application was filed on 15.12.2022, beyond three years. The petitioner also argued that since the title of the plaintiffs was disputed in the written statement, the prayer for mandatory injunction without a declaration of title was not maintainable. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the judgments cited, held that the amendment was based on a cause of action that arose after the suit was filed, i.e., the construction during the pendency of the suit, and therefore, the amendment was not barred by limitation. The court further held that the amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was permissible even without a declaration of title, as the suit was originally for injunction and the amendment sought to add a consequential relief. The court dismissed the civil revision petition, confirming the trial court's order allowing the amendment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment sought to include prayer for mandatory injunction based on construction during pendency of suit - Held that amendment relates to cause of action arising after suit, not barred by limitation - Court allowed amendment as it does not change nature of suit (Paras 2-5).
B) Civil Procedure Code - Amendment of Plaint - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment without declaration of title - Held that in a suit for injunction, amendment to include mandatory injunction is permissible even if title is disputed, as the amendment does not introduce a new case (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment of plaint to include a prayer for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation and whether such amendment is maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, confirming the trial court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for mandatory injunction.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Limitation for amendment
- Mandatory injunction
- Declaration of title
Case Details
C.R.P.No.1559 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.10216 of 2023
Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Meenal (for petitioner); Mr.C.Suraj and Mr.M.V.Kartik for M/s.A.Ashwiin Kumar (for R1 to R4); No appearance for R5 and R6
Tamizhazhagan, R.A.Saravanan, T.Kavitha, S.Mary, Salyjose, Mahendran
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Petition challenging the order allowing amendment of plaint in a suit for permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 18.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.1891 of 2022 in O.S.No.106 of 2019 by the Principal District Munsif's Court, Kallakurichi, which allowed the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint to include a prayer for mandatory injunction.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the amendment was barred by limitation and that the mandatory injunction without declaration of title was not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the amendment application. The petitioner challenged that order in the High Court.
Issues
Whether the amendment of plaint to include a prayer for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation?
Whether the amendment is maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title when title is disputed?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the amendment was barred by limitation as the construction was known since 08.08.2019 and the application was filed on 15.12.2022, beyond three years.
Petitioner argued that without a declaration of title, the prayer for mandatory injunction is not maintainable.
Respondents 1 to 4 argued that the amendment was based on subsequent events during the pendency of the suit and was not barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
An amendment to include a prayer for mandatory injunction based on construction during the pendency of the suit is not barred by limitation as it arises from a subsequent cause of action. Such an amendment does not change the nature of the suit and is permissible even without a declaration of title when the original suit is for injunction.
Judgment Excerpts
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Munsif’s Court, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.1891 of 2022 in O.S.No.106 of 2019, dated 18.02.2023 allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Advocate Commissioner's report filed before the Trial Court on 13.08.2019, there were construction activities in the suit property even on 08.08.2019 and therefore, the instant application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 seeking inclusion of prayer for mandatory injunction on 15.12.2022 beyond the period of 3 years and therefore, the same is barred by limitation.
Procedural History
The respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.106 of 2019 for permanent injunction. During pendency, they filed I.A.No.1891 of 2022 seeking amendment to include mandatory injunction. The trial court allowed the application on 18.02.2023. The petitioner/3rd defendant filed C.R.P.No.1559 of 2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the revision on 04.02.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VI Rule 17
- Constitution of India: Article 227
