Madras HC Upholds Amendment Seeking Fence Removal And Cart-Track Restoration, Finding No Contradiction In Neighbours’ Destruction Claims

In brief

The question

Whether the proposed amendment raised a contradictory plea about the destruction of the cart track.

The court held

The Court held that the Trial Court rightly allowed the amendment application and found no basis for interference under Article 227.

It also directed

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The plaintiffs sued for a declaration of an easementary right over a cart track and a permanent injunction.

They pleaded that the defendants ploughed and destroyed the track on 29 August 2021.

¶ 3

After an Advocate-Commissioner reported that no cart track existed at the location and that the area was fenced, the plaintiffs applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint and seek a mandatory injunction for removal of the fence and restoration of the track.

¶ 4–5

In the amendment application, they alleged further destruction and fencing on 10 September 2021.

¶ 4–5

The Trial Court allowed the amendment; the defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶ 6, 1

02Issues

i.Whether the proposed amendment raised a contradictory plea about the destruction of the cart track.

¶ 8, 10–12

ii.Whether the Trial Court properly allowed the pre-trial amendment seeking mandatory-injunction relief.

¶ 6, 12–13

03Law Applied

Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC governs amendment of pleadings.

¶ 12–13

Pre-trial amendments are to be considered liberally, provided they do not alter the suit’s nature, withdraw an admission, or cause prejudice to the opposing party; the opposing party may be permitted to file an additional written statement.

¶ 12–13

The Court also noted that the proposed amendment fell within the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶ 12

The defendants cited Ram Niranjan Kajaria v. Sheo Prakash Kajaria, (2015) 10 SCC 203, and T.K. Krishnamurthy v. Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, 2006 (5) CTC 178; the Court considered them but found that they stated only general principles and did not preclude the amendment in this case.

¶ 8, 13

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 137

04Reasoning

The Court read the plaintiffs’ pleadings as a whole: the allegation was that the defendants first ploughed and destroyed the track on 29 August 2021 and then further damaged it by raising paddy crops and fencing the area on 10 September 2021.

¶ 12

It therefore found no contradiction between the original pleading and the proposed amendment.

¶ 12

The amendment was made before trial, did not change the suit’s nature, withdraw an admission, or cause prejudice, and the defendants could respond by filing an additional written statement.

¶ 12–13

The existence of the track and the claimed easement remained matters for trial.

¶ 12–13