1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)(MD) No.2358 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Syed Ahamad .. Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1. Mariyammal 2. Sakthivel 3. Selvaraj 4. Soundaravalli 5. Shanthi .. Respondents/Defendants Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 12.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.572 of 2011 in Original Suit No.169 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arumugam ORDER The dismissal order dated 12.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.572 of 2011 in Original Suit No.169 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.169 of 2004 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a money decree on the basis of suit pro-note dated 26.03.1999 and subsequently original plaint has been amended with regard to deletion of third defendant and amended plaint has also been filed, wherein it has been erroneously mentioned that the suit pro-note has come into existence on 26.03.1996 and in order to set right the same, the present petition has been filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the fact that the present petition has been filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to amend the date of suit pro-note mentioned in the amended plaint and also considering the nature of dismissal order passed 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the definite stand of the revision petitioner/ plaintiff is that the suit pro-note has become emerged on 26.03.1999, but in the amended plaint, due to oversight it has been mentioned as 26.03.1996 and in order to set-right the same, the present petition has been filed, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. 5. For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the averments made in the original plaint and also the suit pro-note as well as the date mentioned in the amended plaint. In the original plaint, it has been specifically mentioned that the suit pro-note has come into existence on 26.03.1999. This Court has also perused the suit pro-note, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the same has come into existence on 26.03.1999. But in the amended plaint, it has been erroneously mentioned as 26.03.1996. It is nothing, but a venial mistake and the same can be rectified by way way of allowing the present petition. The Court below without considering the date of the suit pro-note mentioned in the original plaint and also without seeing the suit pro-note, has erroneously dismissed the present petition. Since the mistake found in the amended plaint is nothing, but a venial mistake, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.572 of 2011 in Original Suit No.169 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.572 of 2011 in Original Suit No.169 of 2004 is allowed. However, the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- by way of cost to the contesting respondents within a period of one month from today and to that effect a memo has to be filed in Original Suit No.169 of 2004 and the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram is directed to proceed with the trial of Original Suit No.169 of 2004 only after receipt of memo. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. Copy to: The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate (SR.No.45180) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2358 of 2011 smn and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 TR :03.01.2012:2P/4C 21.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/