K.Bhuvaneshwari vs P.Viswanathan

Court
Madras High Court

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 7027 of 2026
and CMP No. 30248 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012525902026}
K.Bhuvaneshwari
W/o.Kandasamy,
Door No.8/11, Perumanallur Road,
Othapparai Medu,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. P.Viswanathan
S/o. Pattaiya Gounder @ Pattappa Gounder
Door No. 8/11, Perumanallur Road,
Ottapanamedu, Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
2. E.Rajendran
S/o.Eswaran,
Door No. 8/11, Perumanallur Road,
Ottapanamedu, Tiruppur,
Tiruppur District.
3. M.D.Ravikumar
S/o.R.Damodharan,
Door No. 6, Muthu Nagar, 4th Street,
Kongu Main Road, Tiruppur Town,
Tiruppur District.
Karuppathal (Died)
Eswaran (Died)
4. Poongodi
W/o. Jeevanantham,
D/o. Eswaran,
S.P. Colony, Perumanallur Road,
Near Karur Vysya Bank right side,
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
Tiruppur - 641 602,
Tiruppur District.
5. Indirani
W/o. Sivakumar,
D/o. Eswaran,
Pothigai T.V.S. Showroom,
Kangayam Road, Near Velan Hotel,
Venkateshwara Nagar, Bhavani Nagar,
Tiruppur-641 604, . Tiruppur District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and final orders dated 01.10.2026 made in IA
NO.674/2026 in OS No.388/2017 on the file of the Additional District Munsif
Court, Tiruppur by allowing this CRP.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.S.Suganthan
For Respondent(s): Mr. S.Muthukumar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.10.2026 passed in IA
No.674 of 2026 in OS No.388 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Tiruppur, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff
under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., for amendment of plaint came to be
dismissed by the Court below.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents and carefully perused the materials
available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed
by the Court below.
3.The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.388 of 2017 seeking for the relief
of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner
disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
4.The suit reached the stage of final arguments and at that stage, the
present application was filed in I.A.No.674 of 2026 under Order VI Rule 17 of
C.P.C., seeking for the following amendment:
1)In page No.5 of the plaint, add the following as para 9(b) after para
9(a):-
9(a). The plaintiff submits that the 1st defendant has filed the written
statement and denying the execution of the Will deed dated 29.12.1988.
Further the 1st defendant
has contended that he filed the suit in O.S.No.80 of 1989 on the file of
Subordinate Judge of Tiruppur and obtained preliminary decree dated
27.07.1990 basing on which he obtained final decree on 03.02.1991 upon
which he filed the execution petition in E.P.No.63 of 1991 before the
Subordinate Judge of Tiuppur and obtained the order of possession. Therefore
the 1st defendant has contended that the plaintiff has no right over the suit
properties and he is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. The
plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as absolute
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
owner thereof and therefore he sought the relief of permanent injunction.
However the 1st defendant is contending that the plaintiff has no right over the
suit properties and denying her right. Under the circumstances is seeking the
relief of declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit properties.
Further the defendants are attempting to sell away the suit properties to third
parties taking advantage of the documents created by the 1st defendant.
Therefore the plaintiff is seeking the relief of consequential permanent
injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents etc., from in any way
and in any manner either alienating or encumbering the suit properties to third
parties.
2) In page No.6 of the plaint, in para No.11, in the court fee column,
delete the figure "Rs.5,000/-" and insert the figure "Rs.43,77,800/-" and also
delete the figure "Rs.150.00" and insert the figure "Rs.65,742".
3) In page No.6 of the plaint, in para 11, in the court fee column, after
the word "under section 27(c), add the words "and 25(b)".
4) In page No.6 of the plaint, in paragraph No.11, in the details of
valuation column, add the following after the details of valuation of permanent
injunction:-
Declaration and consequential permanent injunction:-
Guideline value of T.S.No.155/4/1 is Rs.4,480/- per sq.foot
...
Total extent of the suit property is 953-3/4 sqaure feet
...
Total value of the landed property is Rs 42,72,800/-
...
Total value of the building is Rs.1,00,000/-
...
Total value of the suit property is Rs.43,72,800/-
...
Half of the same is Rs.21,86,400/-
...
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
Hence, the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction
is valued at Rs.43,72,800/- and a court fee of Rs.65,592/- paid under section
25(b) of Amended Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 6 of 2017.
Total value of the suit is Rs.43,77,800/-
...
Total court fee paid is Rs.65,742/-
...
5) In page No. 6 of the plaint, in para No.12, in the prayer column, add
the following as prayer column - (b) and (c) as follows:-
b) declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit
properties;
c) granting consequential permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, agents etc., from in any way and in any manner either
alienating or encumbering the suit properties to third parties
6) Consequently, in page No.6 of the plaint, In para No.12, in the
prayer column, change the columns (b) and (o) as (d) and (e);
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1) - Online copy of the guideline value certificate
5.The Court below has dismissed the said application mainly on the
ground that the relief of declaration sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff was
barred by limitation and aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision
Petition has been filed before this Court.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
6.The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner is that the
amendment seeking for declaration of title and consequential permanent
injunction was intended for a comprehensive adjudication of the dispute
between the parties concerning the same properties. The amendment sought for
by the petitioner/plaintiff will not in any way cause any prejudice to the
petitioner. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the
application on mere technicalities and an opportunity should have been given to
the petitioner/plaintiff to prosecute the substantial relief sought for.
7.In the considered view of this Court, the ground raised in the present
Civil Revision Petition is unsustainable for two reasons. The first reason is that
the amendment was sought for at the final hearing stage. Hence, it is a post trial
amendment, which has to satisfy the requirement under proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 of C.P.C., which mandates that the plaintiff must show due diligence
and to establish before the Court that, in spite of exercising due diligence, the
plaintiff was not able to carry out the amendment at the earliest point of time.
This requirement is completely missing in the present case and the Court cannot
mechanically order an amendment of plaint without this mandate being
satisfied.
8.The second reason is that, as rightly held by the Court below, the suit is
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
of the year 2017 and the amendment was sought for in the year 2026 for
declaration of title, which amendment was found to be barred by limitation.
This finding rendered by the Court below is sound in law and it does not suffer
from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.
9.In view of the above discussion, the order dated 01.10.2026 passed in
IA No.674 of 2026 in OS No.388 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Tiruppur, is sustained.
10.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SSR
To
The Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )

CRP No. 7027 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
SSR
CRP No. 7027 of 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )