P. KUPPUSAMY vs R. VEERAN

CRP No. 3281 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. 3281 of 2023
and
CMP.Nos. 20234 of 2023
& 7337 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA011570872023}
1. P. Kuppusamy
S/o. Palani
2. P.Paramasivam
S/o. Palani
Petitioners 1 & 2 are residing at:
Jeeva Nagar, Kanagapuram Post,
Modakurichi Taluk, Erode 638112.
3. P.Palaniyammal,
W/o. Vaanjinatha, Manakkattur,
Elavamalai Post, Kalingarayanpalayam,
Bhavani Taluk, Erode 638 316.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. R. Veeran
S/o. Raman, Door No. 66/62, Jeeva Nagar,
Kanagapuram Post, Modakurichi Taluk,
Erode 638112.
2. P.Kuppusamy @ Dharman,
S/o. Raman, Jeeva Nagar, Kanagapuram Post,
Modakurichi Taluk, Erode 638112.
..Respondent(s)
(Since the respondent No.2 was set exparte in I.A.No.04 of 2022;
nd
Notice to the 2 respondent may be dispensed with)
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking to set aside the Fair order and Final order dated 22.06.2023 made
in I.A.No. 4 of 2022 in O.S.No. 179 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif Court, Erode.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Ramaraj
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Rajaguru for R1
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order
passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, allowing I.A.No.4 of
2022 in O.S.No.179 of 2020, filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the
plaint.
2. The first respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit
seeking the following reliefs:
“ a) declaring his title right over the mamool common
pathway indicated in the plaint rough plan as “P” for free
accessing of his share of the suit property and residence and,
b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, agents and assignees from trespass into the
plaintiff’s share of suit property indicated in the plaint rough plan
as “C” and from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of his share in any manner and,
c) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants
to remove the concrete pathway and aluminium sheeted bathroom
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
indicated in the plaint rough plan as “E1” and “E2” over the
common pathway constructed by the defendants and,
d) directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit.”
3. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an
application seeking amendment of the northern side boundary of the suit
schedule property. The reason stated by him was that, at the time of execution
of the settlement deed by his father in his favour, the northern side boundary
was described as “LBP Vaikkalukku Therku”. Subsequently, the first
respondent/plaintiff was granted patta in respect of the adjacent property
extending up to the LBP Canal. Therefore, he sought to amend the northern side
boundary of the suit schedule property.
4. The petitioners herein/defendants filed their counter opposing the
amendment application, contending that, as per the plaintiff's own affidavit, the
boundary now sought to be amended was already in existence prior to the filing
of the suit, but the plaintiff purposely mentioned the wrong boundary. It was
further contended that the settlement deed specifically describes the northern
side boundary as LBP Vaikkal and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot now seek to
introduce a different boundary by way of amendment. It was also pointed out
that the alleged patta had not been produced before the Trial Court. Hence, they
sought for dismissal of the amendment application.
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
5. The learned Trial Court, upon considering the rival submissions, found
that the proposed amendment would neither introduce a new case nor give a
fresh cause of action. It was further held that the amendment would not cause
any serious prejudice to the defendants. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court
allowed the amendment application.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants would
submit that the amendment application was filed after two years from the date
of institution of the suit. The Trial Court failed to consider the requirement to
establish that, despite due diligence, the plaintiff could not have raised the
matter at earliest point of time. It was further contended that the proposed
amendment would alter the scope of the suit and affect the nature of the
settlement deed. Without properly considering these aspects, the Trial Court
mechanically allowed the amendment application. Hence, the order is liable to
be set aside.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent/plaintiff would submit that the suit property originally belonged to
his father, who executed settlement deeds in favour of his three sons, including
the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the settlement deed, the northern side
boundary has been shown as LBP Canal. Subsequently, the Government issued
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
patta in favour of the occupants, including the plaintiff, in respect of the
adjacent property. While filing the suit, due to an inadvertent mistake, the
plaintiff described the northern side boundary in accordance with the settlement
deed without taking into consideration of the subsequent grant of patta. It is
further submitted that the proposed amendment is only to correct the boundary
and the same would neither introduce a new cause of action nor alter the nature
of the suit. The amendment would facilitate proper identification of the suit
property and enable the Trial Court to effectively adjudicate the dispute
between the parties. Hence, the learned Trial Court rightly allowed the
amendment application.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 in
Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited v. Sanjeev Builders Private
Limited and Another.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the
respondents and also perused the material available on record.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
10. According to the plaintiff, after the execution of the settlement deed,
he was granted patta in respect of the property situated adjacent to his share of
the suit property, extending up to the LBP Canal. However, inadvertently, while
mentioning the northern side boundary in the plaint, he had mentioned the
boundary as stated in the settlement deed. It is also relevant to note that the
plaintiff, in the plaint itself, has specifically averred that he was allotted Natham
patta land by the Government in the year 1991, adjacent to his share of the suit
property, and that he constructed a house therein in the year 2005. It is the
specific case of the plaintiff that, while executing settlement deeds in favour of
his three sons, his father had left an extent of 900 sq.ft. on the eastern side of the
properties as a common pathway in order to avoid future disputes. According to
the plaintiff, the defendants subsequently constructed a bathroom and attempted
to prevent him from using the common pathway.
11. As per the averments made in the plaint, it is seen that the dispute
between the parties primarily relates to the identification and enjoyment of the
common pathway and the properties situated adjacent thereto. The parties have
already set out their respective pleadings with regard to the identity and
boundaries of the properties. In such circumstances, the proposed amendment
relating to the northern side boundary would not change the nature of the suit or
introduce an entirely new cause of action but, it would facilitate proper
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
identification of the suit property and enable the Trial Court to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties.
12. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the first
respondent/plaintiff, namely, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited v.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another , reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)
729 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a
subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof
are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far
beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under
Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary
for determining the real question in controversy provided it does
not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is
mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the
latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper
adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and
(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other
side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does
not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim,
resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right
(in certain situations).
(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be
allowed unless
(i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be
introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time
barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration,
(ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit,
(iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or
(iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.
(v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the
court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily
required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be
compensated by costs.
(vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-
pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more
satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
(vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an
additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred
cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after
expiry of limitation.
(viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint.
(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground
to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the
prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation
framed separately for decision.
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
(x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or
the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to
the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed.
Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the
relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already
pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be
allowed.
(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement
of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The
court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party
would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As
such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable
prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an
advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the
party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be
allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court
to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between
the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v.
Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1987)”
13. As held in the judgment, when the amendment does not introduce any
new case or cause of action can be allowed. The plaintiff's contention is that he
was subsequently granted patta in respect of the property situated adjacent to the
suit property and that the amendment is necessary to correctly describe the
northern side boundary. The amendment would assist the Court in identifying
the property and effectively adjudicating the dispute between the parties. It is
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
also an admitted fact that the trial has not commenced. The Courts are required
to be liberal in its approach when the amendment is sought before the
commencement of trial.
14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the proposed
amendment would neither change the nature of the suit nor cause any
irreparable prejudice to the petitioners. On the contrary, it would enable the
Trial Court to properly identify the suit property and decide the real dispute
between the parties. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in
the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order
passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode, in I.A.No.4 of 2022 in
O.S.No.179 of 2020 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12-11-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation: Yes
KKN
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Erode.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )

CRP No. 3281 of 2023
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J.
KKN
CRP No. 3281 of 2023
12 -11-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:33 pm )