1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.268 and 269 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Petchimuthu .. Petitioner in both C.R.Ps. Vs. Sakthivel .. Respondent in both C.R.Ps. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 22.10.2010 and 08.10.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.63 of 2010 and 62 of 2010 in Original Suit No.79 of 2007 by the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchendur. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah in both C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application No.62 and 63 of 2010 in Original Suit No.79 of 2007 by the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchendur. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.79 of 2007 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, Interlocutory Application No.62 of 2010 has been filed so as to reopen the case on the side of the plaintiff and Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 has been filed so as to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to make amendment as set out therein. The Court below has allowed both the petitions on payment of cost of Rs.1000/-. Against the orders passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the respondent/ defendant as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Interlocutory Application Nos.62 and 63 of 2010 in Original Suit No.79 of 2007 and also considering the nature of the orders passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondent and these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has emphatically contended that Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 has been filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the same has been filed after adducing evidence on both sides and the matter stands for advancing argument and under the said circumstances without giving sufficient reason Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 has been filed and the Court below without considering the infirmities found on the side of the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has erroneously allowed Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- and therefore the order passed by the Court below in Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 is not within the four corners of the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore the entire orders passed by the Court below are liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. As stated earlier, Original Suit No.79 of 2007 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction. At this juncture, it would be apropos to look into the description of suit property given in the plaint. In the plaint, it is stated that the suit property is admeasuring 39 feet on east-west and 24 feet on north-south. Of course, it is true that Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 has been filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to make amendment as set out therein. This Court has closely perused the same and found that in Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010, it has been specifically stated that north-south measurement on eastern side is only 13 feet and the same has not been given in the plaint and due to that Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 has been filed for making such kind of amendment in the plaint. 6. Further it is seen from the plaint that clear four boundaries have been given to the suit property and Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 has been filed only to introduce the north south measurement on the eastern side and that too an extent of 13 feet. The proposed amendment would not change the character or nature of the suit nor change the reliefs sought for in the suit. Considering the fact that the proposed amendment would not change anything, it is needless to say that Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 can be allowed so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side, has rightly allowed Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010. 7. Now the Court has to look into Interlocutory Application No.62 of 2010. As stated earlier, interlocutory Application No.62 of 2010 has been filed so as to reopen the case on the side of the plaintiff. Considering the fact that Interlocutory Application No.63 of 2010 is liable to be allowed, the Court below has rightly allowed Interlocutory Application No.62 of 2010 also. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the orders passed by the Court below and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. In fine, these Civil Revision Petition deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application No.62 and 63 of 2010 in Original Suit No.79 of 2007 by the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchendur are confirmed. However, the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff is directed to give Rs.2000/- to the revision petitioner and to that extent a memo has to be filed in the Court below. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur. smn : SR : 01.03.2011 : 2p/2c COMMON ORDER PASSED IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.268 and 269 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/