1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.379 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Jeyathammal .. Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant Vs. Kalaivanan .. Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 09.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.975 of 2010 in Original Suit No.238 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. For Petitioner : Mr.R.A.S.Anandaraj ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 09.11.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.975 of 2010 in Original Suit No.238 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.238 of 2009 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, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.975 of 2010 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to make amendments in the plaint as set out in the petition. The Court below has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.975 of 2010 in Original Suit No.238 of 2009 by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. Before contemplating the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the description of properties given in the plaint. Originally in the plaint, three Survey Numbers viz., 218/34, 218/35 and 218/36 have been shown as suit properties and subsequently as per order passed in Interlocutory Application No.317 of 2006, fourth item of suit property, which is comprised in Survey No.218/27 has been included as one of the suit properties. The present petition has been filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to make amendment in the plaint as set out in the petition. The Court below has allowed the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that already a similar petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.317 of 2006 and the same has been allowed and the present petition has been field at the time of hearing arguments so as to fill up lacuna and the Court below without considering the nature of the proposed amendments sought for in Interlocutory Application No.975 of 2010 has erroneously allowed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 6. As pointed out earlier, originally three Survey Numbers have been shown as suit properties in Original Suit No.238 of 2009 and subsequently as per order passed in Interlocutory Application No.317 of 2006, the fourth item of suit properies has been included in the plaint. The present petition has been filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In fact, this Court has closely perused the proposed amendments mentioned in the present petition and all the amendments have been sought for as a result of inclusion of fourth item of suit properties by way of allowing the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.317 of 2006. The proposed amendments mentioned in the present petition would not change the nature as well as character of the present suit. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly allowed the present petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. 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.975 of 2010 in Original Suit No.238 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam is confirmed. However, the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam is strictly directed to dispose of Original Suit No.238 of 2009 before the end of June, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. If the revision petitioner is willing to file additional written statement if any, he is at liberty to file it. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. 2.The Section Officer, Judicial Department, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.R.A.S.Anandaraj, Advocate, SR.No.10917 smn C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.379 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 01.03.2011 TR : 17.03.2011 : 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/