M.SEENIVASAN, vs A.RENUGA,

Court
Madras High Court

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011388662026}
AND
CMP(MD) NO. 14507 OF 2026
M.Seenivasan ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. A.Renuga,
2. R.N.D. Asok ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-36. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The
Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the fair and
decreetai order dated 15-09- 2026 passed in IA.No.5 of 2026 in OS.No.
328 of 2021, on the file of the Learned III Additional District Munsif
Court, Madurai District and set- aside the same as illegal.
For Petitioner(s) :M/s.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed against the order passed in
IA.No.5 of 2026 in OS.No.328 of 2021 on the file of the III Additional
District Munsif Court, Madurai District.
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents are the
defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration
that the gift settlement deed dated 03.05.2021, executed by the 1st
respondent/1st defendant in favour of the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant,
is null and void, and for a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd
defendant from creating any encumbrance over the suit property.
3. According to the petitioner, the plaint contains an
averment that the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants had
monetary transactions and that, on 24.10.2020, the petitioner/plaintiff had
paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondents/defendants. However,
while instituting the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff inadvertently omitted to
include a prayer for recovery of the said amount, owing to an oversight.
Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present petition seeking
amendment of the plaint by incorporating a prayer for recovery of
Rs.5,00,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 1.5% from the date of
institution of the suit until the date of realisation.
4. The petitioner further contended that the proposed
amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
enable the Court to adjudicate the entire dispute between the parties in a
comprehensive manner. It was also stated that the previous counsel had
not consulted the petitioner regarding the inclusion of a prayer for
recovery of money and that the said counsel subsequently passed away.
Owing to these circumstances, the petitioner was unable to seek the
amendment at an earlier stage. However, the trial Court dismissed the
amendment petition on the ground that the suit had been instituted and
taken on file on 02.08.2021, whereas the amendment petition was filed
only on 10.08.2026. The trial Court further held that the proposed claim
for recovery of money appeared to be barred by limitation and, on that
basis, declined to allow the amendment.
5. The trial Court observed that the petitioner/plaintiff had
allegedly advanced a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.10.2020 and that, under
the applicable provisions of the Limitation Act, the claim for recovery of
the said amount was required to be instituted within the prescribed period
of limitation, ordinarily three years from the date on which the right to
sue accrued. Since the amendment petition was filed only on 10.08.2026,
the trial Court held that the proposed prayer for recovery of money was
barred by limitation and, therefore, declined to permit the amendment.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
present Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of the
application for amendment of the plaint.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
delay in filing the amendment petition occurred because the previous
counsel had not informed the petitioner about the omission to include a
prayer for recovery of money in the plaint. He further submitted that the
previous counsel subsequently passed away, thereby preventing the
petitioner from taking timely steps to rectify the omission. Therefore, the
learned counsel prayed that the impugned order passed by the trial Court
be set aside and the amendment petition be allowed in the interests of
justice.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner/plaintiff had
averred in the plaint that he had advanced a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
respondents/defendants. However, while instituting the suit in the year
2021, the petitioner/plaintiff had not sought any relief for recovery of the
said amount. The prayer for recovery of money was sought to be
incorporated only by way of an amendment application filed on
10.08.2026.
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
8. The petitioner/plaintiff contended that the sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- was advanced to the respondents/defendants on 24.10.2020.
In this context, the relevant question is whether the proposed claim for
recovery of the said amount is barred by limitation and whether the
amendment incorporating such a prayer can be permitted at this stage.
9. However, it is necessary to clarify that Article 34 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, applies specifically to claims based on a bill of
exchange or promissory note payable at a fixed time after sight or after
demand. It prescribes a period of three years from the expiry of the fixed
time
10. In the present case, the period of limitation for seeking
recovery of the amount allegedly advanced on 24.10.2020 expired on
23.10.2023. However, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the application
seeking amendment of the plaint only on 10.08.2026, after the expiry of
the prescribed period of limitation. If the proposed amendment is
allowed, it would permit the petitioner/plaintiff to introduce a relief for
recovery of money that had become time-barred, thereby seriously
prejudicing the rights of the respondents/defendants. The
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
respondents/defendants have also seriously objected to the proposed
amendment on the ground that the claim for recovery of money is barred
by limitation.
11. In the above circumstances, the trial Court rightly
dismissed the amendment petition. This Court finds no merit in the Civil
Revision Petition warranting interference with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RM
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
To
1. III Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai District
Copy To :
Section Officer ( VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )

CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
CRP(MD) No. 2822 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 10:24:34 am )