Madras HC Upholds Rejection Of Temple-Suit Plaintiff’s Late Bid To Replace Vellore HR&CE Official After Objections From The Start

In brief

The question

1. Whether the plaintiff could amend the cause title after trial had commenced to substitute the Joint Commissioner, Kancheepuram, for the Joint Commissioner, Vellore, without establishing due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

The court held

The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s dismissal of the amendment application and disposed of the revision petition on those terms, with no order as to costs.

It also directed

It left open the plaintiff’s option to apply for permission to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit; it did not itself grant that permission.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

01Facts

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 6434 of 2024 seeking declaration and permanent injunction, impleading the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Vellore, as the second defendant.

pp. 2–4

The Department objected to that party’s inclusion from the outset; an issue was framed and PW1 was cross-examined on the matter.

pp. 2–4

After trial had commenced, the plaintiff applied under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to substitute the Joint Commissioner, Kancheepuram, for the Joint Commissioner, Vellore, claiming the original designation resulted from oversight.

pp. 2–4

The trial court dismissed the application, and the plaintiff challenged that dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the plaintiff could amend the cause title after trial had commenced to substitute the Joint Commissioner, Kancheepuram, for the Joint Commissioner, Vellore, without establishing due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the trial court’s refusal to allow the amendment warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC requires a party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to establish that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before trial commenced; the requirement is to be strictly applied.

p. 4

Article 227 provides the basis for supervisory review of the trial court’s order, with interference warranted in this case only if the order suffered from perversity.

p. 4

The Court also observed that, if the plaintiff considered the suit defective, he could seek permission to withdraw it and institute a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The plaintiff’s explanation of oversight did not satisfy the due-diligence requirement because the Department had objected to the named Joint Commissioner from the outset, an issue had been framed, and the matter had been raised in cross-examination before the amendment application was filed.

pp. 3–4

The trial court therefore properly rejected the post-trial amendment, and its order disclosed no perversity warranting supervisory interference.

p. 4

The Court identified withdrawal and a fresh suit as a possible course, subject to obtaining permission under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC.

p. 5

05Holding

The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s dismissal of the amendment application and disposed of the revision petition on those terms, with no order as to costs.

pp. 4–5

It left open the plaintiff’s option to apply for permission to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit; it did not itself grant that permission.

pp. 4–5

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

p. 5

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF