APPUSAMY vs VASANTHA

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA011679252023}
AND
CMP NO. 21477 OF 2023
1. Appusamy
S/o Kuppana Gounder,
Kesarimangalam village,
Kuppichipalayam Post,
Erode district, Bhavani.
2. Radha
W/o Appusamy,
Kesarimangalam village,
Kuppichipalayam Post,
Erode district, Bhavani.
3. Deepan
S/o Appusamy,
Kesarimangalam village,
Kuppichipalayam Post,
Erode district, Bhavani.
..Petitioners/
Respondents/
Defendants
Vs
1. Vasantha
W/o late Muthusamy,
Kesarimangalam village,
Kuppichipalayam Post,
Erode district, Bhavani.
2. Govindhammal
W/o Gopal,
Kesarimangalam village,
Kuppichipalayam Post,
Erode district, Bhavani.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
3. Velusamy
S/o Sengundan,
Kesarimangalam village,
Kuppichipalayam Post,
Erode district, Bhavani.
..Respondents/
Petitioners/
Plaintiffs
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.03
of 2022 in OS No.96 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Bhavani
dated July 11, 2023.
For Petitioners: Mr. C.Kulanthaivel
For Respondents: Mr. R.Prabakar for Respondents 1 to 3
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 challenging the Order dated July 11, 2023 passed in
I.A. No.3 of 2022 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S. No.96 of 2021 on the file of 'the District
Munsif Court, Bavani' ['Trial Court' for short].
2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the Original Suit
and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs therein. For the sake of
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the
Original Suit.
3. The plaintiffs filed the Original Suit seeking declaration of their
alleged easementary right over the suit cart track delineated by the points A,B,C
and D in the suit rough sketch and also permanent injunction against the
defendants not to interfere with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the same. In
Paragraph Nos.8 and 11 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have specifically averred
that on August 29, 2021, the defendants destroyed the suit cart track by
ploughing through it.
4 . Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order
XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
[ ‘CPC’ for short]Application seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner
to note down the physical features of the suit properties including the suit cart
track. The Advocate-Commissioner inspected the suit properties on October 23,
2021 in the presence of both parties and their respective counsels, and filed a
report and plan before the Trial Court on March 25, 2022. Wherein, the
Advocate-Commissioner has noted inter-alia that in the area in which suit cart
track is said to be in existence, there is no cart track and there are only paddy
crops and that the same area has been fenced recently. The defendants filed an
objection to the Advocate-Commissioner's report and plan on April 13, 2022.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
5 . Then the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read
with Section 151 of CPC in I.A. No.3 of 2022 seeking to amend the plaint to
seek the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the fencing and restore the
suit cart track, stating that the defendants pending the Suit, on September 10,
2021, destroyed the suit cart track and fenced the same. The defendants filed a
counter denying the existence of the suit cart track. In the counter, the
defendants further averred that the plaintiffs' stand is contradictory; originally in
the plaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants destroyed the suit cart track
on August 29, 2021, whereas through the amendment sought to be made, they
are claiming that the same was destroyed pending the Suit on September 10,
2021.
6 . After hearing either side on the Order VI Rule 17 Application, the Trial
Court held that there would arise no change in character of the Suit by allowing
the Application and accordingly, allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the defendants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
7 . Despite notice, the respondents who are the plaintiffs in the Original
Suit, did not appear to contest this Civil Revision Petition.
8 . Reiterating the counter averments, the learned Counsel for the revision
petitioners / defendants submits that through the proposed amendments, the
plaintiffs seek to raise a destructive plea which is not permissible. In support, he
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
relies on Paragraph No.20 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram
Niranjan Kajaria -vs- Sheo Prakash Kajaria , reported in (2015) 10 SCC 203 ,
and Paragraph No.9 of Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in T.K.
Krishnamurthy -vs- Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board , reported in 2006
(5) CTC 178 .
9. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the
revision petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
10 . Case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the defendants own
adjoining lands; the plaintiffs' land is situate on the eastern side while the
defendants' land is situate on the western side. On the western side of the
defendants' land, there exist a road namely Kuppichipalayam to Kannamkaradu
Road. The suit cart track branches off from the said road and runs along the
southern boundary of the defendants' land to reach the plaintiffs' land. The
plaintiffs assert easementary right over the suit cart track. In the plaint, it has
been pleaded that the defendants ploughed and destroyed the suit cart track on
August 29, 2021. In the affidavit filed in support of the Order VI Rule 17
Application, the plaintiffs have averred that the defendants destroyed and
fenced the suit cart track on September 10, 2021 and accordingly, sought to
amend the plaint prayer to seek the relief of mandatory injunction as well.
11. That being the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants deny the existence
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
of the suit cart track and the alleged easementary rights of the plaintiffs over the
same. The defendants further allege that the plaintiffs have raised contradictory
pleas qua alleged destruction of suit cart track in the plaint and in the Order VI
Rule 17 Application.
12 . Upon due consideration, this Court does not find anything
contradictory with the pleas of the plaintiffs qua alleged destruction of the suit
cart track. To be noted, the amendment sought to be made by way of Order VI
Rule 17 Application is a pre-trial amendment and the law is well settled that
pre-trial amendment is to be considered liberally. The plea of the plaintiffs qua
alleged destruction of the suit cart track found in the plaint and that found in the
Order VI Rule 17 Application are to considered wholistically. When considered
so, it transpires that, according to the plaintiffs, on August 29, 2021, the
defendants ploughed the suit cart track and destroyed it and on September 10,
2021, the defendants further destroyed the same by raising paddy crops and by
fencing it. There is nothing contradictory in it when read wholistically. Apart
from being a pre-trial amendment, amendment falls withing the limitation
period of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
13 . This Court has duly considered the two decisions relied on by the
learned Counsel for the revision petitioners. They put forth nothing but some
general guidelines and principles regarding amendment of plaint and
appointment of Advocate-Commissioner. In this case, the amendment sought to
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
be made by the plaintiffs does not alter the nature of the Suit. There appears to
be no mala fide intention on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs do not seek
to withdraw any admission made in the plaint by way of this proposed
amendment. The proposed amendment does not cause any prejudice to the
defendants. Needless to mention that the defendants have the right to file
additional written statement after the amendment. Existence of the suit cart
track and the easementary right claimed by the plaintiffs over the same are
matter for trial. None of the guidelines or principles governing amendment of
plaint appears to be violated in this case. In these circumstances, this Court is of
the view that the Trial Court rightly allowed the Order VI Rule 17 Application
in I.A. No.3 of 2022 and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with
the same. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
14 . Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
JRS
To
The Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani .
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4304
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
R.SAKTHIVEL J.
JRS
CRP No. 3457 of 2023
AND
CMP NO. 21477 OF 2023
26-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 07:25:59 pm )