A.Johnraj vs Minor Praveen Kumar on 28 April, 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28.04.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

C.R.P.(MD)No. 968 of 2017(PD)
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4292 of 2017

A.Johnraj .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Minor Praveen Kumar
2.Minor Pradisha
3.Jeya
(Minors 1 2 are represented
by their mother and guardian,
the 3rd respondent herein) .. Respondents

Prayer :Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
15.02.2017 passed in I.A.No.517 of 2016 in G.W.O.P.No.212 of 2011 on the file
of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.

!For Petitioner :: Mr.M.P.Senthil

^For Respondent ::

:ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, questioning the legality of the order passed by the Trial Court in
an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.

2.The case of the revision petitioner is that, in the Guardian Wards
Original Petition filed by him, he has not mentioned the cause of action and
therefore, he may be permitted to insert a paragraph regarding the cause of
action. According to the revision petitioner, non disclosure of cause of
action in the petition explicitly, will render his application non
maintainable.

3.The Trial Court, which has considered the petition as well as the
counter filed there in, has held that the petitioner has raised a plea
against the content of the written documents which are prohibited under
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act and in the petition seeking leave to
amend the prayer, certain new facts contra to the documents have been
attempted to be introduced. Having observed so, the Court below has
dismissed the application saying that the amendment sought need not be
permitted.

READ  Ajit Savant Majagavi vs State Of Karnataka on 14 August, 1997

4.The subject matter is regarding the guardianship of minor children
and petition is filed under Section 12 read with Section 25 of the Guardian
and Wards Act. The dispute leading to file the said petition has been
vividly explained and put forth by the petitioner in the said petition. The
same has been contested and controverted by the respondent by filing a
counter. The case is also ripe for trial. After 6 years, now for reason
best known, under the garb of introducing a clause regarding cause of action,
the petitioner herein has filed this application. Wherein as pointed out by
the Trial Court, new facts which are totally contrary to the documents are
being introduced.

5.When there is no legal impediment to sustain the petition without
explicitly mentioning the cause of action or without an exclusive paragraph
regarding cause of action, the apprehension of the petitioner that this
petition is not maintainable itself is an illusion.

6.When there is no specific requirement to recite exclusively regarding
cause of action and when there is no objection taken by the adverse party
that the petition does not disclose cause of action, the apprehension of this
revision petitioner is unwarranted. The petition to amend is filed with some
ulterior intention and not for reason as stated in the petition. Hence this
Court finds no merit in this revision petition.

7.Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No Costs.

To

The Principal District Judge,
Thoothukudi..

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *