1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.116 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.Rajathi 2.Subbulakshmi 3.Lakshmi 4.Lingammal 5.Manikandan .. Petitioners/2 to 6 Plaintiff Vs. 1.Seethammal 2.Kosalaiammal 3.Subbulakshmi .. Respondents/Defendants Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 09.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.143 of 2009 in Original Suit No.72 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Perumal ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 09.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.143 of 2009 in Original Suit No.72 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. 2. The revision petitioners herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.72 of 2004 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of their shares, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.143 of 2009 so as to permit them to make amendments in the plaint as set out in the petition. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners/plaintiffs as revision petitioners. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that originally the plaint filed in Original Suit No.72 of 2004 has been filed by the mother of the revision petitioners during their minority and after attaining majority, they have come forward with the present petition to make amendments in the plaint as set out therein and the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 5. For considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appearing for the revision petitioners, the Court has to look into the nature of the proposed amendments mentioned in the petition. In paragraph No.3, it has been mentioned that the defendants have been making arrangements to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. In paragraph No.4, it has been mentioned that the revision petitioners have erroneously mentioned Section 37(1) of the Court Fees Act instead of Section 37(2). In paragraph No.6, it is stated to include a new item of property in the plaint. The Court below has dismissed the petition in respect of amendments mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 and allowed the petition with regard to inclusion of one item of property. 6. As stated earlier Original Suit No.72 of 2004 has been instituted for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of the shares of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs. In Original Suit No.72 of 2004, Court fee has been paid under Section 37(1). Now an attempt has been made on the side of the revision petitioners so as to change the Section of Court Fees Act from Section 37(1) to Section 37(2). Under the said circumstances, the proposed amendments mentioned in paragraph No.3 have been introduced. 7. Considering the fact that originally the Court fee has been paid under Section 37(1) of the Court Fees Act stating that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs are out of possession, now they cannot come and say that they are in joint possession of the suit properties. Under the said circumstances, the dismissal order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 8. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.143 of 2009 in Original Suit No.72 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai. +1cc to Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate SR.2514 Smn SR : 01.02.2011 : 2p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.116 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 22.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/