THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 737 of 2010 Order: In spite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. The petitioner’s specific case is that the correct survey number of the suit schedule lands is 307/RUU/3, but in the revenue records i.e., in the original pattadar passbook and title deeds and Adangal pahanies, the survey number is incorrectly mentioned as 307/RUU/2. It is also his case that even at the time of filing of the suit he could not verify the mistake. It is also his case that when he approached the revenue authorities they insisted to produce the original documents which he has filed into the Court. Hence, he filed the present petition in IA No. 35 of 2010 in OS No.14 of 2010 seeking return of the original pattadar passbook and title deed for correction of entry in survey number. It appears that basing on the averments made by the petitioner and entries in the documents, this Court passed injunction orders in OS (SR) No.202 of 2010, dated 06.01.2010 and the lower Court, having observed that this Court passed injunction order in respect of Survey No.307/RUU/2 and that the defendant has not made his appearance and the petitioner has not whispered in the petition how he realized the mistake, refused to return the original documents and accordingly dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision. It has to be seen that it is always better if the mistakes are corrected and necessary amendments are sought in the pleadings at the initial stage itself. Since it is the petitioner/plaintiff who has filed the documents, I am of the view that his documents can be returned to him for the purpose of getting the mistake corrected by the revenue authorities concerned. However, since injunction was granted basing on the above documents in respect of Survey No.307/RUU/2, it is made clear that such injunction order will not be in force as far as Survey No.307/RUU/3 is concerned and the petitioner has to seek fresh injunction orders in respect of Survey No.307/RUU/3. Subject to the above observation, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The lower Court is directed to return the original documents to the petitioner/plaintiff for getting the mistake corrected by the revenue authorities concerned. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 24.03.2011 Nsr