1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION(PD)No.2385 of 2011 K.S.Ganesan .. Petitioner/Claimant Vs. 1.A.K.Neelakandan 2.K.S.Ramesh 3.T.M.Kumaran .. Respondents/Defendants 2,1 and 3 Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 16.10.2006 passed in Interlocutory Application No.148 of 2006 in Original Suit No.92 of 2004 by the Third Additional Sub Court, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Sreenivasan ORDER The order dated 16.10.2006 passed in Interlocutory Application No.148 of 2006 in Original Suit No.92 of 2004 by the Third Additional Sub Court, Madurai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.92 of 2004 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs sought for therein, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the first respondent/second defendant has filed Interlocutory Application No.148 of 2006 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to amend the father name of the first defendant. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has allowed the petition. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.148 of 2006 and the order passed therein by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission on the basis of the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and both of them are the sons of Ambalam Kuppusamy Iyer and prior to institution of suit, a legal notice has been issued to both of them and the first defendant has refused to accept the same, since his initial is erroneous and further in Original Suit No.92 of 2004, the first defendant has remained ex-parte and the present petition has been filed by his brother, who has been arrayed as second defendant so as to amend the father name of the first defendant and since the first defendant has not raised any objection with regard to his father name mentioned in the plaint and since he has not stated anything on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the basis of the legal notice given to him, the present petition is not legally maintainable and the Court below without considering the nature of amendment sought to be introduced, has erroneously allowed the petition 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 nature of amendment sought to be introduced in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.92 of 2004. It is stated in the petition that the first defendant has been given in adoption and his adoptive father name is Kerndam Seetharamier. As stated earlier, the second defendant is the brother of the first defendant. The specific case of the petitioner/second defendant is that the first defendant has given in adoption to the said Kerndam Seetharamier. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the initials given to the first defendant. The name of the first defendant is Ramesh and his initials have been put as K.S. The specific case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the father of the first and second defendant is Ambalam Kuppusamy Iyer. If really such kind of adoption has not takenplace, the name of the first defendant cannot be stated as K.S.Ramesh. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has also contended that in the written statement filed by the second defendant, it has been stated that the first defendant is nothing, but the foster son of Seetharamaier and therefore the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be granted. It has already been pointed out that the plaintiff himself has put the name of the first defendant as K.S.Ramesh. Therefore the contentions putforth on the side of the side of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly allowed the petition and 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. 8. 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.148 of 2006 in Original Suit No.92 of 2004 by the Third Additional Sub Court, Madurai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(RECORDS) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. smn To The Third Additional Sub Judge, Madurai. SB 02/01/2012 2P 2C C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2385 of 2011 21.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/