01Facts
D. Martin sued for a declaration that the unilateral cancellation of a sale deed executed in his favour was void.
pp. 3–5K. Madhavan, the second defendant and the power-of-attorney agent who had executed the sale deed, supported Martin’s case in a written statement.
pp. 3–5Martin later settled the suit property on Madhavan and died.
pp. 3–5After the suit was restored, Madhavan was transposed as the second plaintiff pursuant to a Division Bench order permitting him to prosecute the suit.
pp. 3–5He then sought, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, to amend the plaint by adding allegations and claims concerning the sale, cancellation, and his ownership under the settlement deed.
pp. 6–10The trial court allowed the application; Ranganathan challenged that order under Article 227.
pp. 6–1002Issues
i.Whether a defendant who had filed a written statement may, after being transposed as a plaintiff, amend the plaint originally filed by another party.
pp. 11–13ii.Whether the trial court’s order allowing that amendment warranted interference under Article 227.
p. 1303Law Applied
Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits a party to alter or amend its pleadings on just terms; as applied by the Court, the party may amend the pleading that it filed, but cannot amend an opposing party’s pleading.
p. 12The Court relied on V. Senthilkumar v. Lakshmi, 2026 (4) LW 368, for the principle that only the party to the relevant pleading may seek its amendment.
p. 12The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere where the trial court’s order suffered from perversity.
p. 2 · p. 13Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 31
04Reasoning
Madhavan had originally appeared as a defendant and filed a written statement supporting Martin’s plaint.
pp. 10–13His transposition as a plaintiff did not, in the Court’s view, entitle him to amend a plaint that he had not filed; he could instead seek to sustain the original plaintiff’s pleaded case.
pp. 10–13Allowing the amendment would create an anomalous position in which the same person would advance a plaint in his capacity as transposed plaintiff while retaining his earlier written-statement position as a defendant.
p. 13Because the trial court failed to address this issue and mechanically allowed the application, its order was perverse and warranted supervisory interference.
p. 1305Holding
The Court held that Madhavan, as a transposed plaintiff, could not amend the plaint originally filed by Martin after having filed a written statement as a defendant.
p. 14It allowed the revision, set aside the order permitting amendment, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months of receiving the order.
p. 14No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
p. 14Original Court PDF
N. RanganathanvsD. Martin (Deceased) 1. K. Madhavan
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
