1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2135 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.R.Chandravathy 2.V.Vijayaraj .. Petitioners/Respondents 17 and 18/Defendants 17 and 18 Vs. 1.N.Balasaraswathi 2.A.Sarojini 3.J.Kamalapushbam 4.A.Gnanasowndri ..Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners 5.G.Veerasamy 6.Balasaraswathi 7.Veerasamy 8.Gurusamy 9.Narayanasamy 10.Malikeswari 11.Ramar 12.Sathiyanarayanan 13.G.Venkatraj 14.Vijayalakshmi 15.Amaravathi 16.Krishnasamy 17.Kothai Nayagi 18.Rajapushbam 19.Rajaram 20.Seenivasan .. Respondents 5 to 20 (Respondents 5 ot 20 are set exparte before the Trial Court) Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 08.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.470 of 2011 in Original Suit No.177 of 2008 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Perumal ORDER The order dated 08.08.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.470 of 2011 in Original Suit No.177 of 2008 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.177 of 2008 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of partition of their shares and separate possession, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants 17 and 18. During pendency of Original Suit No.177 of 2008, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.470 of 2011 under Order VI, Rule 17 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to make amendment in the plaint as stated 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 at the instance of the defendants 17 and 18 as revision petitioners. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed by the Court below in Interlocutory Application No.470 of 2011, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has sparingly contended that by way of allowing proposed amendment, the entire nature of the suit as well as cause of action would be changed and the Court below without considering the nature of proposed amendment, has erroneously allowed Interlocutory Application No.470 of 2011 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 5. For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioners, the Court has to look into the necessary averments made in the plaint and also the nature of proposed amendment. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, it has been specifically stated that the suit first item has been purchased in the year 1906 by Pesu Naicker @ Naranappa Naicker. The proposed amendment is that the suit first item has been purchased in the year 1906 by one Naranappa Naicker, S/o.Pesu Naicker @ Naranappa Naicker. Therefore it is quite clear that in the plaint, it has been erroneously mentioned that the suit first item has been purchased by Pesu Naicker @ Naranappa Naicker instead of mentioning the name of his son viz., Naranappa Naicker. The proposed amendment is nothing, but flimsy and the same does not change either nature of the suit or cause of action. 6. The Court below after considering the nature of the proposed amendment has rightly allowed the petition on payment of cost of Rs.250/-. 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.470 of 2011 in Original Suit No.177 of 2008 by the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is confirmed. However the revision petitioners are at liberty to file additional written statement, if any. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( T AND P ) /TRUE COPY/ smn SUB ASST REGISTAR To:: The District Munsif, Kovilpatti. Tuticorin District. 1CC TO MR. V. PERUMAL,ADVOCATE, SR: 40866: DM;2011:DEC:02:: C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2135 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 2P:3C:: 22.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/