(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 22-11-2024 made in IA No.10 of 2024 in OS NO.74 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tiruchengode.

Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.12.2024 made in IA No.11 of 2024 in OS No.74 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tiruchengode.)

Common Order:

1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA Nos.10 and 11 of 2024 in OS No.74 of 2015, dated 22.11.2024 and 05.12.2024, respectively, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, wherein the applications filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs, came to be dismissed by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 6 to12.

3. This Court carefully considered the materials available on record and this Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

4. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit in OS.No.74 of 2015, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare certain documents as null and void and to declare the title of the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

5. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed IA.No.10 of 2024, under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, to amend the extent of the property as 1.01 acres instead of 7.12 acres in Survey No.177/3 .

6. IA.No.11 of 2024, was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to examine town surveyer and to ascertain the sub divisions that have taken place in the property and for proper description of the property by giving the correct sub division number.

7. The Court below has dismissed the amendment application on the ground that the change in the extent of property is not supported by any documents and such amendment was sought for at a belated stage. Insofar as reopening the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs is concerned, the Court below found that there was no need to examine the town surveyor considering the nature of relief that has been sought for by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by these orders passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed before this Court.

8. In the case in hand, the petitioners/plaintiffs is ultimately claiming for a right over 43-1/4 cents in Survey No.177/3. The total extent of that property was originally mentioned as 7.12 acres and this was sought to be corrected as 1.01 acres. Whatever is the total extent, the dispute confines itself to 43-1/4 cents and there is no change in that. Hence, it can always be established before the Court below even without this amendment by virtue of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. That apart, the amendment sought for was at the post trial stage and therefore, the Court will not allow the amendment unless due diligence is shown by the plaintiffs. For all these reasons, the order passed by the Court below dismissing the amendment application does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.

9. Insofar as reopening the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs is concerned, it is contended that the town surveyor has to be examined to ascertain the various sub divisions that have taken place after the filing of the suit.

10. If any sub divisions have taken place in the properties, the relevant records can be placed before the Court and the necessary amendment can be made in the plaint and it is not necessary to issue subpoena to the concerned authority and make him come to the Court with the records. The Court cannot issue any such directions mechanically in the light of Rules 75 and 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice. In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application filed in IA.No.11 of 2024, does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court.

11. In the result, both the orders passed by the Court below are sustained and both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be a direction to the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, to dispose of the suit in OS.No.74 of 2015, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that any observations made in these civil revision petitions will not have any bearing while the Court below decides the suit on merits.

12. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.