1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.620 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Devaki ..Petitioner/Petitioner/2nd Defendant Vs. 1.Krishnaveni 2.Murugesan ..Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in unnumbered I.A in O.S.No.36 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Thanjavur dated 30.09.2010. For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of a review petition filed by the petitioner herein. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was originally filed against the second respondent and based on the written statement filed by the second respondent, the petitioner herein was impleaded as second defendant in the original proceedings. After the impleadment of the petitioner herein, the first respondent filed an application to amend the plaint with regard to measurement of the suit property. In the said application, the second respondent filed a counter-affidavit, as if the said counter-affidavit was adopted by the petitioner herein. 3. After hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the amendment petition. After noting counter statement was filed by the second respondent stating that the petitioner adopted the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, a memo was filed by the petitioner herein pointing out the deliberate mistake/wrong statement made by the second respondent. Thereafter, a review application has been filed to review the order allowing the amendment application. The said review petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by that only the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr.C.Karthik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendment application was allowed, based on the counter statement made by the second respondent/first defendant in the suit. Secondly, he submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to contest the application. Thirdly, he submitted that in the suit itself, the petitioner is only a formal party. Therefore, he submitted that the trial Court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the amendment application by reviewing the order passed in amendment application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. A perusal of the records would show that the amendment application was filed, in which, notice was also ordered on the petitioner. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner opposing the amendment application. 6. It is further seen from the order passed by the trial Court that it was passed on merits and it is not based on any concession shown either by the petitioner or by the second respondent. It was observed in the said order that the suit is at the pre-trial stage and that there is no introduction of new facts and no prejudice is caused to the respondent therein (petitioner herein) and the second respondent herein in allowing the application. 7. Therefore, it is very crystal clear that the alleged adoption of the second respondent's counter-affidavit by this petitioner did not weigh the mind of the trial Court. It is suffice to say that the trial Court passed the order based on merits uninfluenced by the counter-affidavit of the second respondent or the alleged adoption of the counter-affidavit by the petitioner herein. It may be a deliberate act on the second respondent, so as to make it to appear that the counter-affidavit was adopted by the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to take action against the second respondent herein, who filed the alleged adoption memo. 8. That apart, in Paragraph No.7(a) of the plaint, it has been mentioned that no relief is sought against the petitioner. When that is the position, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the order passed in the amendment application filed by the first respondent herein. Assuming that the petitioner's has got a right to make a defence in the said application, it is seen that the petitioner did not chose to file a counter-affidavit and therefore, she looses her right to contest the application. The order was passed on merits and the said order cannot be reviewed and the trial Court rightly dismissed the review application. 9. In view of that, the Civil Revision Petition fails and stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Thanjavur. ps akm/20.04.11 /2p-2c/ C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.620 of 2011 28.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/