Madras HC Upholds Cart-Track Amendment Describing Route Across Newly Impleaded Defendants’ Lands, Lets Them Object To Commissioner’s Report

The first respondent/plaintiff brought O.S. No. 39 of 2019 seeking a declaration concerning the use of a cart track and a permanent injunction.

After additional defendants, including the revision petitioners, were impleaded, the plaintiff applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule to describe the cart track’s course across properties associated with the defendants.

The petitioners opposed the amendment, arguing that it relied on an Advocate Commissioner’s report prepared before they were parties, expanded the suit and sought to create a fresh cause of action.

The District Munsif Court allowed the amendment, prompting this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The application was governed by Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which concerns amendment of pleadings.

The Court considered whether the proposed amendment was necessary to identify the subject matter of the suit and enable effective adjudication of the relief claimed.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which permits interference with a subordinate court’s order where warranted; it found no perversity justifying interference.

No precedent was cited.

The Court accepted the trial court’s view that the amendment was needed because the claimed right to use the cart track required proper identification of the properties along its route.

As the petitioners had been impleaded in connection with properties through which the track allegedly ran, refusing the amendment would undermine the purpose of their impleadment.

The amendment did not expand the suit’s scope; it sought to establish the plaintiff’s existing cause of action against the petitioners.

The Court separately addressed the petitioners’ lack of opportunity to challenge the Commissioner’s report by granting them liberty to file objections for the trial court’s consideration on the merits and in accordance with law.

It granted the petitioners liberty to file objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report, to be considered by the trial court on the merits and in accordance with law.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.