In connection with Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C , I understand that the Madras High Court arrived at the conclusion that it is not belated on the part of the petitioner/appellant for filing a petition for amendment of plaint at the appellate court if there is enough ground to prove that the petitioner will be affected for the act of his counsel who for some reason failed to address the mistake before trial at the lower court - and also, if the evidences (in this case the court appointed advocate commissioner + land surveyor reports) prove the title of the petitioner beyond doubt, and if the defendant is not affected in any way due to the grant of the amendment in favour of the petitioner, the errors found in the plaint should be read in co-relation of the evidences and the title documents submitted by the petitioner and thereafter grant the amendments as prayed for.
In this case, the petitioner holds a clear title to the property and remained in undisturbed possession till the time of encroachment by the defendant. The trial court also did not consider other facts such as that the petitioner had obtained a permanent injunction and also filed 03 contempt petitions against the defendant in the trial court for violating the court order and trespassing into the petitioner's property.
I would be grateful to the experts for their guidance and citation of earlier Madras High Court verdicts in cases as this.
Thanks and Regards,
Venkataraman Iyer
