Mr. G. Kirubhakaran and Another v. Mr. Chalapathy Rao and Another

O R D E R This application is filed to amend the plaint.

¶2According to the applicants, the applicants are the plaintiffs in the main suit and the suit was filed for recovery of money based on cheques. In the plaint the plaintiff mentioned the dates and number of the cheques and the amount of cheques. However, certain cheques particulars were inadvertently mentioned wrongly due to typhographical error. Therefore, this application is filed.

¶3The second respondent filed a counter, denying the avermnts. According to the second respondent he is no way connected with the loan transactions between the first respondent and plaintiff and the suit itself is not maintainable. Even according to the plaintiff, the first respondent borrowed money on various occasions from the year 2013 to 2017. The first respondent never instructed the second resondent to receive the 7 blank cheques which were received earlier for some other loan transactions.The same is also stated in the reply notice sent by the second respondent. Already, the first respondent repaid the money to the tune of Rs.3,80,00,000/- to the applicant/plaintiff towards principal and interest. While so, it is not necessary to seek furnish security to tune of Rs.1,60,00,000/- and amended the plaint as prayed in the Page3 of 5 application. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶4This Court heard both sides and perused the records. According to applicant, due to typhographical error some of the cheques particulars were wrongly typed. The applicant also tabulated the particulars of cheques and the corrections.

¶5This Court also perused the particulars of amendment, the applicant/plaintiff also alrady produced cheques before this Court along with the plaint. On a perusal of cheques, it is seen that the particulars of some cheques have been wrongly typed and those corrections are only typhographical error. Though the respondent strongly objected to allow this application, the proposed amendment is only in respect of the particulars of cheques which were already filing along with plaint and the proposal amendment no way alters the nature and character of the suit. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this application.

¶6The grounds raised by the respondent are all defence to be adjudicated in the suit. In view of the same, this application is allowed. Page4 of 5

7.Necessary amendment in the cause title shall be made.

¶8For filing Amended Plaint Copy, post the matter on 23.02.2026. 11-02-2026 nvi AoNo.o3965oofo2025 P.DHANABAL,oJ. NVI AoNo.o3965oofo2025oin C.S.No.263oofo2024 11-02-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL in C.S.No.263 of 2024 1.Mr.G.Kirubhakaran 2.Mrs.S.Jayashree ...Applicant (s) Vs 1.Mr.Chelapthy Rao S/o.Late Dr.M.Seshagiri Rao, Proprietor of Dr.Giri's Museum, Having office at, No.24, Brandson Garden Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. and residing at Old No.23, New No.49, Medavakkam Tank Road, Perambur Barrack, Chennai-600 12. 2.Mrs.Surekha Hariharan ...Respondents Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Madras High Court OS Rules read with Order VI Rule XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, to order the amendment of plaint and consequential amendements as morefully stated in the schedule to the Judges Summons. For Applicant(s): For Respondents: Mr.C.Thiagarajan Mr.Nambi Arooran Page2 of 5