High CourtsSingle Bench(2005) 09 MAD CK 0128

S. Kuppusamy vs P.K. Subramani, P.K. Kandasamy, P.K. Kumaravel and P.K. Loganathan

Madras High Court · Decided on 16 September 2005 · Citation: (2005) 4 CTC 734 : (2005) 4 LW 244 : (2005) 4 MLJ 269

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.D. Dinakaran, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No. 2109 of 2004 and C.M.P. No. 20103 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 367 words

P.D. Dinakaran, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 25.8.2004 in I.A. No. 664 of 2003 in O.S. No. 206 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif, Arakkonam.

2.

The respondents/plaintiffs 2 to 5 along with their mother Kuppammal filed the suit for permanent injunction against the revision petitioner/defendant. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 664 of 2003 to amend the plaint, which was objected to by the revision petitioner/defendant.

3.

The trial Court allowed the said application placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2004 2 MLJ 411 (Sarammal v. S. Dilshad Begum and Ors.), wherein it is held that the amendment can be ordered if no new case is set up in the amendment. It is against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the defendant.

4.

The main objection of the revision petitioner is that the powers conferred under Order VI Rule 17 seeking to amend the plaint cannot be resorted to annul the available right of limitation accrued on the revision petitioner/defendant in the suit. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1995 TLNJ 77 (SC) (K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. v. Alliance Ministries and Ors.), wherein it is held thus,

"...Having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, any amendment on the grounds set out, would defeat the valuable right of limitation accrued to the respondent."

5.

Even though the power conferred under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC can be exercised to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 1995 TLNJ 77 SC(cited supra), such power cannot be indiscriminately exercised to extend the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act.

6.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The fair and decretal order dated 25.8.2004 made in I.A. No. 664 of 2003 in O.S. No. 206 of 1987 are hereby set aside. No costs. Connected CMP No. 20103 of 2004 is closed.