M. Govindarajan v. Soodamani & Ors. Madras High Court, per P.B. Balaji, J. CRP No. 2730 of 2022 & CMP No. 14241 of 2022, decided on 14.08.2025 Facts The petitioner, M. Govindarajan, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his one-fifth share in ancestral property. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Order VI Rule

[28/10, 19:15] Sekarreporter: M. Govindarajan v. Soodamani & Ors.
Madras High Court, per P.B. Balaji, J.
CRP No. 2730 of 2022 & CMP No. 14241 of 2022, decided on 14.08.2025
Facts
The petitioner, M. Govindarajan, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his one-fifth share in ancestral property. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by adding a declaratory relief that a settlement deed dated 16.07.2013 executed by his father in favour of the third defendant was null and void, alleging fraud and coercion.
The Trial Court (Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri) dismissed the amendment application on the ground that it was barred by limitation, since the plaintiff was aware of the settlement deed at least from 20.06.2016, the date of the written statement, but sought amendment only on 07.11.2019 — beyond the statutory period of three years.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the trial court’s order.
Issue
Whether the proposed amendment to introduce a declaration that a settlement deed was void , sought more than three years after the plaintiff’s knowledge of the deed, could be permitted under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, despite being prima facie barred by limitation.
Arguments
For the Petitioner (Mr. P. Valliappan, Sr. Counsel):
The amendment was not introducing a new cause of action but was merely clarificatory of the existing claim for partition.
The relief sought was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectively adjudicate the dispute.
Relied on liberal interpretation precedents — Muthusamy v. Loganathan (2021 4 CTC 699), Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanaswamy (2009) 10 SCC 84, and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi (2006) 4 SCC 385 — to argue that pre-trial amendments should be freely allowed.
For the Respondents (Mr. V. Raghavachari, Sr. Counsel):
The amendment introduced a fresh and time-barred cause of action.
The plaintiff had clear knowledge of the settlement deed since 2016, and any challenge thereafter was barred by limitation.
The “doctrine of relation back” cannot be invoked to defeat the accrued rights of the defendants under the Limitation Act.
Relied on L.C. Hanumanthappa v. H.B. Shivakumar (2016 1 SCC 332) and Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh ((1996) 7 SCC 486).
Held
Justice P.B. Balaji dismissed the revision petition, upholding the trial court’s reasoning that the amendment was clearly time-barred and sought to introduce a new declaratory relief inconsistent with the original plaint.
The Court distinguished Muthusamy’s case, noting that:
There, the plaint had already referred to the settlement deeds, making the amendment ancillary.
In the present case, the plaint contained no reference whatsoever to the 2013 settlement deed. Hence, the proposed amendment sought to change the very nature of the suit.
The Court held that:
The doctrine of relation back cannot be invoked when the amendment introduces a barred cause of action.
While Order VI Rule 17 CPC allows liberal amendments, this power is not absolute and must respect the limitation law and vested rights of the opposite party.
The petitioner’s plea that the deed was obtained by fraud and coercion cannot override statutory limitation unless specifically pleaded and proved.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi

> “Liberal construction under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot extend to reviving a claim barred by limitation. The doctrine of relation back operates only when the amendment is ancillary to the original cause of action and does not introduce a new relief.”
Comment

This decision represents a restrained and reasoned application of the amendment jurisprudence under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Justice Balaji harmonizes procedural flexibility with the substantive law of limitation, reiterating that procedural liberalism must yield when finality of rights is at stake.
The order situates itself within the line of authorities — from Revajeetu Builders to South Konkan Distilleries — balancing equity and certainty. While acknowledging the object of Rule 17 to avoid multiplicity and promote complete adjudication, the Court rightly distinguishes between:
Clarificatory amendments that aid adjudication, and
Substantive amendments that resurrect barred claims.
From a practical perspective, this case underscores the importance of comprehensive initial pleadings in partition suits. Failure to challenge suspect documents at the outset may later foreclose remedies on limitation grounds. The judgment also reinforces judicial discipline under Article 227, emphasizing that revisional supervision does not extend to re-appreciation of facts absent perversity.
Key Takeaway
> Procedural latitude ends where limitation begins. An amendment that transforms a partition suit into a declaratory challenge after years of knowledge is not a curable defect — it is a barred claim in procedural disguise.
[28/10, 19:15] Sekarreporter: 👍👍