R. Senthil, vs S. Villanga Veeramani,
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 27/10/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRP(MD) NO. 2726 of
2026
Case QR
{CNR: HCMD011405932026}
and
CMP(MD)No.14050 of 2026
R.Senthil : Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.S.Villanga Veeramani
V.Meenambikai(Died)
2.V.Murugaboopathi
K.Keeradippandi(Died)
3.Mariappan (Exonerated)
4.Thinbai (Exonerated)
5.K.Mariammal
6.K.Bhaskaran
7.K.Muthukumar
8.Thirtham : Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, against the order, dated 21/09/2026 passed in IA
No.3 of 2026 in OS No.329 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Thirumangalam.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman
nd
For 2
Respondent : Mr.R.Rajesh
For R1, R5 to R8 : No Appearance
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition
challenging the order,dated 21/09/2026 passed by the trial Court namely
the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, dismissing his application for
amendment of the plaint in I.A No.3 of 2026 in OS No.329 of 2012.
2.The petitioner originally instituted the suit in O.S No.329 of 2012
seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents. The
second defendant namely Meenambigai also filed a suit in O.S No.181
of 2012 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the petitioner
and his wife. During the pendency of the suits, the third defendant,
namely, V.Murugaboopathi, filed a petition before this Court in
Crl.O.P(MD) No.1900 of 2026, seeking police protection for his life and
limb. Pursuant thereto, this Court directed the Inspector of Police,
Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station, Madurai District, to provide police
protection to the third defendant. Subsequently, an order was passed
permitting the third defendant to renovate the existing shed situated on
his property. According to the petitioner, without issuing any notice to
him or obtaining his objections, the Inspector of Police, Nagamalai
Pudukkottai Police Station, provided police protection to the third
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
defendant on 09/05/2026, during which the third defendant allegedly
encroached upon a portion of the petitioner's property and erected a new
shed thereon. In view of the alleged encroachment, the petitioner filed an
application seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the reliefs of
declaration of title and recovery of possession. However, the trial Court
dismissed the said application on the grounds that it had been filed
belatedly, after a lapse of 14 years and that the petitioner had sought to
introduce a new property into the suit schedule. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial
Court had dismissed the amendment application without properly
appreciating the nature of the proposed amendment. It is further
contended that the petitioner had not introduced any new property into
the suit schedule but had merely sought appropriate reliefs in respect of
his existing property in view of the alleged encroachment that had
occurred subsequently. In view of the above circumstances, he prays that
the civil revision petition is to be allowed, by setting aside the impugned
order passed by the trial court.
4.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Another , reported in (2002) 7 SCC
559, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 8 to 12 as follows:-
“8.In Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and
Ors., AIR (1960) 335, this Court has taken the view
that where a suit was filed without seeking an
appropriate relief, it is a well settled rule of practice
not to dismiss the suit automatically but to allow the
plaintiff to make necessary amendment if he seeks to do
so.
9.Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC confers
jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter
or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings
and on such terms as may be just. Such amendments as
are directed towards putting-form and seeking
determination of the real questions in controversy
between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The
question of delay in moving an application for
amendment should be decided not by calculating the
period from the date of institution of the suit alone but
by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the
suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed
more liberally than those which are sought to be made
4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion
thereof. In former case generally it can be assumed
that the defendant is not prejudiced because he will
have full opportunity of meeting the case of the plaintiff
as amended. In the latter cases the question of
prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall
have to be answered by reference to the facts and
circumstances of each individual case. No strait-jacket
formula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere
delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for
amendment.
10.An amendment once incorporated relates
back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of
relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings
is not one of universal application and in appropriate
cases the Court is competent while permitting an
amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by
it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the
extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been
brought before the Court on the date on which the
application seeking the amendment was filed. (See
observation in Siddalingamma and Anr. v. Mamtha
Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561).
11.In the present case the amendment is being
sought for almost 11 Years after the date of the
institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from
5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of
title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts
as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of
permanent prohibitory injunction and which is
pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would
be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of
declaration of title and recovery of possession being
sought in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the
cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added
as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit.
The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated
by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage
of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the
defendant is right in submitting that if he has already
perfected his title by way of adverse possession then
the right so accrued should not be allowed to be
defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a
new relief which would relate back to the date of the
suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the
advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by
excluding a period of about 11 years in calculating the
period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned
by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be
protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of
declaration of title and recovery of possession, now
sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard
shall be deemed to have been made on the date on
which the application for amendment has been filed.
6/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
12.On the averments made in the application,
the same ought to have been allowed. If the facts
alleged by plaintiff are not correct it is open for the
defendant to take such plea in the written statement
and if the plaintiff fails in substantiating the factual
averments and/or the defendant succeeds in
substantiating the plea which he would obviously be
permitted to raise in his pleading by way of
consequential amendment then the suit shall be liable
to be dismissed. The defendant is not prejudiced, more
so when the amendment was sought for commencement
of the trial.”
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the order
passed by this Court in C.R.P. (PD)(MD)No. 2136 of 2015 ( Rengarajan
and Another Vs. Rajendran and Another ) , wherein, in paragraph 20, it
has been held as follows:-
“20.In this case even if doctrine of relation back
is not applied ex facie the relief is not barred by
limitation. The plaintiff was put to notice about the
alienation only on 08.05.2013 through the reply notice
of the respondents/defendants. Later, the same has
been reiterated in the written statement dated
04.07.2014. The present application for amendment is
filed on 06.06.2015, well within the period of 3 years.
Therefore, the declaration prayer prima faciely is not
barred by limitation. Therefore, going by the guidelines
7/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in Surender
Kumar Sharma V. Makhan Singh, Sampath Kumar V.
Ayyakannu and Another and L.C. Hanumanthappa
(Since dead) Represented by His LRs. V. H.B.
Shivakumar, the plaintiff is entitled to seek amendment
of his plaint, provided he established through evidence
that the relief is not barred by limitation. Therefore,
this Court considers merit in the revision petition.
Hence, this revision petition is allowed. The order
dated 11.08.2015 passed in I.A. No. 313 of 2015 in
O.S. No. 43 of 2014 by the District Munsif,
Thiruvaiyaru, is hereby set aside and the petition is
allowed, preserving the right of
respondents/defendants, questioning the declaration
relief on the point of limitation. For the purpose of
reckoning limitation, the amendment permitted shall
not date back to the suit and it shall be deemed to have
been brought before the Court on the date on which the
application seeking the amendment was filed, i.e.,
06.06.2015.”
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/third defendant submitted that the trial had commenced only
on 25/06/2026 and that even after obtaining an order in Crl.O.P(MD) No.
1900 of 2026, the petitioner had not filed the amendment application
before the commencement of the trial. It is further submitted that the
8/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
defendants had not encroached upon any portion of the petitioner's
property and that the shed had been constructed entirely within the third
defendant's own premises.
7.The learned counsel for the second respondent further submitted
that the deceased Meenambigai had instituted O.S No.181 of 2012
seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner and his
wife and had obtained an injunction in her favour. Subsequently, when
the petitioner allegedly attempted to interfere with her peaceful
possession, the third defendant, namely, Murugaboopathi, sought police
protection for his life and limb. In view of the above circumstances, the
trial court has rightly dismissed the impugned petition and prays for
dismissing this civil revision petition.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
9.In the present case, the petitioner seeks to amend the plaint by
9/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
incorporating the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession
on the ground that the defendants have allegedly encroached upon a
portion of his property and constructed a new shed thereon. The proposed
amendment does not appear to introduce an entirely new cause of action
unrelated to the original suit. Rather, according to the petitioner, the
necessity for seeking the additional reliefs arose from the alleged
encroachment that occurred on 09/05/2026. In such circumstances, the
proposed amendment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.
The questions as to whether the alleged encroachment actually occurred,
whether the disputed portion forms part of the petitioner's property, and
whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought are matters to be
decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the
parties.
10.It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has contended that
the proposed amendment relates to the very same property that forms the
subject matter of the original suit and does not involve the introduction of
any new property. The correctness of this contention and the merits of the
additional reliefs sought can be examined by the trial Court during the
10/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
course of the trial.
11.Further, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Sampath Kumar's case lays down the principle that the
merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated need not ordinarily be
adjudicated at the stage of deciding an application for amendment. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that a plaintiff is not precluded
from instituting a separate suit seeking a declaration of title merely
because such relief was not originally sought. Therefore, the question as
to whether the proposed amendment is ultimately sustainable on merits
ought not to be confused with the question of whether the amendment
should be permitted.
12.In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the trial
Court ought to have considered the nature and necessity of the proposed
amendment, particularly the petitioner's contention that the cause of
action for seeking the additional reliefs arose from the alleged subsequent
encroachment. The application ought not to have been rejected solely on
the grounds of delay or the alleged introduction of a new property,
without properly examining the nature of the proposed amendment. At
11/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
the same time, the respondents/defendants must be afforded an adequate
opportunity to contest the amended pleadings, including by raising the
plea of limitation and all other legally permissible defences in their
additional written statement. The question of limitation, if raised, shall be
considered by the trial Court in accordance with law.
13.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to set
aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and allow the present
Civil Revision Petition, subject to the following directions:-
(i)The petitioner shall carry out the
amendment to the plaint, as sought for in the
amendment application, within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(ii)Upon receipt of the amended plaint, the
respondents/defendants shall be afforded an
opportunity to file their additional written statement
within one week thereafter.
(iii)Upon completion of the pleadings, the trial
Court shall frame such additional issues as may
arise from the amended plaint and the additional
written statement, in accordance with law.
12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
(iv)The trial Court shall thereafter proceed
with the trial and dispose of the suit on its merits,
without granting unnecessary adjournments, within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
14.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order
passed by the trial Court dismissing the amendment application is set
aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
27/10/2026
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To,
1.The District Munsif Court,
Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
2.The Section Officer, VR/ER Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
13/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
R.POORNIMA.,J
er
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )
CRP(MD)No.2726 of 2026
27/10/2026
15/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 12:00:07 pm )