MADANLAL D. CHAWLA vs R. BHUVANESHWARI

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 26-10-2026
Pronounced on : 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
CRP No. 3252 of 2023
and
CMP.No.20058 of 2023
CNR: {HCMA011551482023}
1. Madanlal D. Chawla
S/o Dowlath Ram Chowla
2. Mahesh D.Chowla
S/o Dowlath Ram Chowla,
3. Reka M.Chowla
D/o Mandanlal D Chowla,
4. Sanjai M Chowla
S/o Mandanlal DChowla,
5. Roma D Chowla
W/o Mahesh D Chowla,
Petitioners 1 to 5 Residing at
No.15, Vidhayala Road, Salem 636 007.
6. K.V.P.Kambadoss,
S/o K.V.Palanisamy Chettiar,
No.5A, Arunachala Asari Street,
Dhadubai Kuttai,
Salem 636 001.
7. K.V.P.Balasubramaniam,
S/o K.V.Palanisamy Chettiar,
No.4/95A, East Street,
Singalanthapuram,
Rasipuram Taluk,
Namakkal District.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
8. K.V.P.Govindaraj
S/o K.V.Palanisamy Chettiar,
No.5A, Arunachala Asari Street,
Dhadubai Kuttai,
Salem 636 001.
9. K.V.P.Nagarj
S/o K.V.Palanisamy Chettiar,
No.5A, Arunachala Asari Street,
Dhadubai Kuttai,
Salem 636 001.
10.K.V.P.Chandrasekaran,
S/o K.V.Palanisamy Chettiar,
No.4/95A, East Street,
Singalanthapuram,
Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
R. Bhuvaneshwari,
W/o N.Ranganathan,
Rep by her Power of Attorney Agent/Husband,
N.Ranganthan, S/o Natarajan,
No.48, Kaliamman Kovil Street,
Gugai, Salem 636 006.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking to set aside the fair and final orders dated 14.02.2023 passed in
IA.No. 2 of 2022 in OS.No. 491 of 2019 on the file of the I-Additional District
Munsif Court, Salem.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondent(s): Ms.D.Sathya
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and
decreetal order dated 14.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.491 of
2019 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration in respect of the suit
Schedule-B property, namely, the pathway, and for a permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the suit pathway and
interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the property. During the
pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint by including the
following amendments:
“1. In Valuation para IX, after value of the suit for the
purpose court fee and jurisdiction is Delete "Rs. 7,000.00" Add
"Rs.9,000.00"
2. In Valuation para IX, Add after 3 "4. Value for the Relief
of Mandatory Injunction to remove the Compound Wall on the
Western side of the 'A' Schedule property is Rs.1000.00", in next
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
line Add "Court Fee paid under Sec 27(c) of TNCF Act is
Rs.30.00"
3. In Valuation para IX, Add after 4 "S. Value for the Relief
of Mandatory Injunction to remove the Blue Colour Iron Gate on
the Northern side of the 'B' Schedule property is Rs.1000.00", in
next line Add "Court Fee paid under Sec 27(c) of TNCF Act is
Rs.30.00"
4. Delete "Rs. 210.00" after total Court Fee paid is Add "Rs.
270.00"
5. In prayer column Add after 5 "6. Directing the defendants
to remove the Compound wall on the Western side of the 'A'
Schedule property to the length of 139% feet and to the breadth of
1 fect built in Hallow Bricks or permit the plaintiff to remove the
same on the cost of defendants in specific period of time."
6. In prayer column Add after 6 "7. Directing the defendants
to remove the Bliue Colour Iron Gate placed on the Northern side
of the 'B' Schedule property to the height of 10 feet and to the
breadth of 30 feet which is encroached on the suit path way or
permit the plaintiff to remove the same on the cost of defendants in
specific period of time."
7. After Plaint para IX Add "IX A) During the pendency of
the above suit, the Defendants unlawfully constructed a Compound
Wall by encroaching the common pathway on the Western Side of
the suit 'A' Schedule Property to the length of 139% feet and to
breadth of 1 feet built in Hallow Bricks and also erected a Blue
Colour Iron Gate on the Northern Side of the suit 'B' Schedule
Property to the height of 10 feet and to the breadth of 30 feet, So,
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
that have to be removed by an order of Mandatory Injunction.
Hence, the suit is amended accordingly.”
4. The reason stated in the amendment petition is that the suit was
originally filed on the ground that the defendants attempted to construct a
compound wall on the northern side of the common pathway and fix an iron
gate across the suit Schedule-B property. At the request of the plaintiff, an
Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who inspected the suit property and
filed a report and plan. From the Commissioner's report, the plaintiff came to
know that the defendants had constructed a compound wall on the western side
of the 'A' Schedule property to the height of 10 feet in the common pathway and
completely blocked the pathway. The Commissioner's report also revealed that
a blue-coloured iron gate had been erected in front of the common pathway on
the northern side of the 'B' Schedule property. Since the defendants had
allegedly encroached upon the common pathway by constructing the compound
wall and erecting the iron gate, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by
incorporating the necessary pleadings and prayers for mandatory injunction
directing the defendants to remove the said constructions.
5. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The first
defendant filed a counter-affidavit, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 10,
contending that there were no pleadings in the original plaint to the effect that
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
the defendants had attempted to encroach upon the common pathway or fix an
iron gate on the northern side thereof. It was further contended that a stone
revetment was already in existence even at the time when the defendants
purchased the properties. The iron gate and compound wall were erected over
the existing stone revetment immediately after the purchase and had been in
existence for more than 12 years. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had
introduced an entirely new claim by alleging that the compound wall and iron
gate had been newly constructed by the defendants during the pendency of the
suit and that the plaintiff came to know about the same only through the
Commissioner's report. It was further contended that the alleged pathway
exclusively belonged to the defendants and that the proposed amendment was
barred by limitation. The defendants also contended that the plaintiff was
attempting to introduce a new case and fill up the lacunae in the original
pleadings. Therefore, they sought the dismissal of the amendment petition.
6. The Trial Court, after considering the rival submissions, allowed the
application for amendment. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have
filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
8. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners would
submit that the plaintiff, in Paragraph VI of the plaint, had categorically stated
that a stone revetment had been constructed to the height of two feet along the
entire length of the suit pathway. In response thereto, the defendants, in
Paragraph VIII of their written statement, had specifically stated as follows:
"The said stone revetment was available even at the time of
sale of the entire property by these defendants from the true and
absolute owners and this stone revetment is there for more than 12
years and it is the boundary for their lands on the Eastern side."
9. The learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiff had falsely
stated in the amendment petition that she came to know about the compound
wall and iron gate only through the Commissioner's report. According to the
defendants, the compound wall and iron gate had been in existence for more
than 12 years even prior to the institution of the suit, and the plaintiff had
deliberately described the compound wall as a stone revetment in the original
plaint. By way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff was attempting to
introduce an entirely new claim, which is not permissible. It was further
contended that the Trial Court, without properly appreciating the materials
already available on record, had erroneously concluded that the objections
raised by the defendants were matters to be decided during trial.
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent
would submit that, at the time of institution of the suit, there was no compound
wall or iron gate in the suit Schedule-B property and that only a stone revetment
was in existence. It was only upon receipt of the Commissioner's report that the
plaintiff came to know that a compound wall measuring 10 feet in height had
been constructed and a blue-coloured iron gate had been erected in the suit
Schedule-B property, thereby completely obstructing the common pathway.
Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the proposed amendment was
necessary for effectively adjudicating the disputes between the parties.
11. Admittedly, there is no specific averment in the original plaint
regarding the existence of a compound wall or an iron gate. On the other hand,
the plaintiff had referred to the existence of a stone revetment in the suit
Schedule-B property as on 07.10.2019. The defendants, in their written
statement, had also not specifically referred to the existence of a compound wall
or an iron gate. They had only stated that the stone revetment had been in
existence for more than 12 years. However, contrary to the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the defendants before this Court, the defendants, in
their counter filed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 before the Trial Court, had specifically
stated that the iron gate and compound wall were erected over the existing stone
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
revetment immediately after the purchase of the properties and had been in
existence for more than 12 years.
12. The above facts clearly indicate that the contention of the defendants
that the plaintiff had deliberately described the compound wall as a stone
revetment in the original plaint cannot be accepted at this stage. Admittedly,
the trial has not yet commenced. It is well settled that, before commencement of
trial, an application for amendment of pleadings is required to be considered
liberally, provided that the proposed amendment does not introduce an entirely
new case or fundamentally alter the nature and character of the suit. In the
present case, the proposed amendment does not introduce a new cause of action
or alter the fundamental nature and character of the suit. The Trial Court has
rightly observed that the correctness of the rival claims can be determined only
after a full-fledged trial. In view of the above, this Court does not find any
illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting
interference.
13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the fair and
decreetal order dated 14.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.491 of
2019 on the file of the learned I-Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, is
hereby confirmed. The defendants are granted liberty to raise all their
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
objections by filing an additional written statement and canvass the same before
the Trial Court during trial. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
12-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKN
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
To
The I-Additional District Munsif Court,
Salem.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3252 of 2023
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
KKN
CRP No. 3252 of 2023
12-11-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )