Elaiyammal vs Kumarasamy

CRP No. 6863 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6863 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012453682026}
AND
CMP NO. 29481 OF 2026
1. Elaiyammal
W/o.Ponnusamy Gounder
2. Muthulakshmi
W/o.Late Ramasamy,
3. Sasikumar
S/o.Ponnusamy Gounder,
4. Chandhiralekha
D/o.Ponnusamy gounder
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Kumarasamy
S/o.Late Ramasamy
2. Manikam@Karupannan
S/o.Late Palaniappa Gounder
3. Seenivasan
S/o.Manickam @ Karuppannan,
4. Sivasubramaniam
S/o.Manickam @ Karuppannan
5. Nallasivam @ Shanmugam
S/o.late Palaniappa Gounder
6. Mani @ Santhamani
W/o.Late Ramasamy
7. Chithra @ Rathinambhal
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:56 pm )

CRP No. 6863 of 2026
D/o.Chinnathambi
8. Sheelavathi
W/o.Saravanan,
Ponnusamy Gounder (Died)
9. Anjaladevi
W/o.Vadivel
Chinnammal (Died)
10.Balasubramaniam
S/o.Late Munusamy
..Respondent(s)

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
praying to set aside the fair order and final order dated 24.08.2026 passed in
IA.No.6 of 2026 in OS.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Paramathi, Namakkal District.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Titus Enock
Order
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the fair and decretal order passed in IA.No.6
of 2026 in OS.No.39 of 2019 by the District Munsif Court, Paramathi,
st
Namakkal District, wherein the application filed by the 1 respondent / plaintiff
under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint, came to be allowed by
the Court below.
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:56 pm )

CRP No. 6863 of 2026
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused
the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
st
3. The 1 respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in OS No.39 of 2019
seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the usage of cart track and for
permanent injunction. Originally, when the suit was filed, there were seven
defendants. Subsequently, an impleading petition was filed pursuant to which
defendants 8 to 15 were impleaded.
st
4. The 1 respondent / plaintiff filed IA No.6 of 2016 under Order VI
Rule 17 of CPC seeking for the following amendments to be included in the
schedule of property:-
மேற்படி தாவா X Y பாதையானது ஜெடர்பாளை யம் to சோழசிராமணிசெல்லும்
தென்வடல்தார்சாலையிலிருந்துகிழக்குநோக்கி X, Y ஒழுங்கில்செல்கிறது .
மேற்படி பாதையானதுஆரம்பத்தில் ஆம்பிரதிவாதிக்குபாத்தியப்பட்ட
X, Y 5
சர்வே எண் 253/4C லும் , 1 ஆம்பிரதிவாதிக்குபாத்தியப்பட்டசர்வே எண்
253/4D லும் 4 ஆம்பிரதிவாதிக்குபாத்தியப்பட்டசர்வே எண் 258/4, 258/3
ஆகியநிலங்களின்தென்புறஓரமாகவும்அதேபோல 8 ஆம்பிரதிவாதிக்கு
பாத்தியப்பட்டசர்வே எண் 257/1A லும் , 10 ஆம்பிரதிவாதிக்குபாத்தியப்பட்ட
சர்வே எண் லும் ஆம்பிரதிவாதிக்குபாத்தியப்பட்டசர்வே எண்
257/1B 11
257/1C லும் , 13 ஆம்பிரதிவாதிக்குபாத்தியப்பட்டசர்வே எண்கள் 257/1D
257/2 ஆகியநிலங்களின்வடபுறஓரத்தில்செல்லும்பாதையைப்பொருத்து
தாவா .
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:56 pm )

CRP No. 6863 of 2026
5. The petitioners, who are defendants 8, 11, 14 and 15 opposed the
said amendment on the ground that such amendment had been sought for based
on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who had been appointed even
before the petitioners were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. That apart,
the amendment sought for by the plaintiff virtually change the character of the
suit since the plaintiff was attempting to expand the extent of property without
any cause of action.
6. The Court below, after considering the rival contentions, came to a
conclusion that the amendment has to be allowed considering the nature of
relief sought for by the plaintiff for usage of cart tract. Aggrieved by the said
order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
7. The main grievance that has been expressed on the side of the
petitioner is that this amendment was sought for after nearly seven years after
the filing of the suit, based on the report of the Advocate commissioner.
According to the petitioners, they were never given an opportunity to file their
objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner since they were not
parties to the proceedings at the relevant point of time. It is further contended
that the plaintiff is attempting to create a cause of action afresh against the
petitioners by virtue of the amendment.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:56 pm )

CRP No. 6863 of 2026
8. The Court below while dealing with the objections, came to a
conclusion that the amendment was necessitated since the pathway runs along
the properties belonging to the petitioners and the same has also been explained
in the sketch that was filed along with the plan. Therefore, the Court below
came to a conclusion that the amendment was essential for the purpose of
deciding the suit effectively.
9. The reasoning given by the Court below does not suffer from any
perversity warranting the interference of this Court. In fact, if the amendment
sought for by the plaintiff is not permitted, there will be no use in impleading
the petitioners as defendants in the suit. The Court below has rightly held that
since the right to use the cart track is the relief sought for, the properties
through which the cart track runs have to be properly identified and explained.
10. The amendment sought for does not really expand the scope of the
suit and by virtue of the amendment, the cause of action as against the
petitioners is sought to be established by the plaintiff.
11. One of the main grievance that was expressed on the side of the
petitioners is that the petitioners never had an opportunity to file their objection
for the report of the Advocate Commissioner since the report was submitted
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:56 pm )

CRP No. 6863 of 2026
even before the petitioners were impleaded as defendants. Considering the
grievance expressed by the petitioners, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file
their objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the same will
be considered by the Court below on its own merits and in accordance with law.
12. In the result, the order passed by the Court below is hereby
confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RKA
To
The District Munsif Court,Paramathi, Namakkal District.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:56 pm )

CRP No. 6863 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
RKA
CRP No. 6863 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 29481 OF 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 01:32:56 pm )