1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2190 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 Murugaraj .. Petitioner Vs. Mariammal .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011 in Original Suit No.108 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar ORDER The order dated 10.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011 in Original Suit No.108 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.108 of 2010 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011 so as to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the document mentioned therein. The Court below has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/defendant as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011 and also considering the description of suit property given in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.108 of 2010, this Court is of the view that notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has attacked the order passed by the Court below in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011 on the following grounds: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (a) In the plaint it has been stated about the various sale deeds of the alleged predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff, wherein no survey number has been given and in the plaint it has been specifically stated that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.116/3, but in the document sought to be produced it has been mentioned that the disputed property is comprised in Survey No.116/1 and the Court below has erroneously allowed the present petition. (b) The Court below without giving sufficient opportunity to the revision petitioner has allowed Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the description of property mentioned in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.108 of 2010, wherein it has been specifically stated that the suit property is comprised in Natham Survey No.116/3. The present petition has been filed so as to permit the respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff to produce rectification deed dated 22.09.2010, wherein it has been clearly stated that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.116/1. But in the earlier sale deed, it has been erroneously mentioned as 116/3. Under the said circumstances, the rectification deed has come into existence. 6. It is an admitted fact that on the side of the revision petitioner, a detailed written statement has been filed, wherein it has been clinchingly stated that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.116/1. In the rectification deed no changes have been made with regard to existing four boundaries. 7. Considering the fact that the clear admission made on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant is to the effect that the suit property is comprised in Survey No.116/1 and also considering that in the rectification deed there is no change in the four boundaries, it is very clear that the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011 can very well be accepted. The Court below has rightly allowed the same. The only grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is that he has not been given proper opportunity to file counter in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011. 8. In fact in the written statement filed on the side of the revision petitioner, it is clearly averred that the suit property is in exclusive enjoyment and possession of the wife of the revision petitioner and she has made arrangements to get patta for the same. Considering the nature of the stand taken on the side of the defendant, the defendant can very well file additional written statement, if any. Therefore simply because the revision petitioner has not been given opportunity to file counter in Interlocutory Application No.631 of 2011, the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be set aside. Therefore viewing from any angle, the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. 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.631 of 2011 in Original Suit No.108 of 2010 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is confirmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file additional written statement, if any and he is also at liberty to raise legal question with regard to admissibility of the rectification deed at the time of arguments. The District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is directed to dispose of Original Suit No.108 of 2010 without adhering the observations made in this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Kovilpatti. +1CC TO MR.S.SIVA THILAKAR, ADVOCATE SR.41156 Smn SR : 02.12.2011 : 3p/3c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2190 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/