1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:14.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.M.JAICHANDREN CRP.PD(MD) No.2100 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 M.Subramanian :Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner -Vs- R.Muthumani :Respondent/Respondent/Respondent The Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.03.2011 in I.A.No.1 of 2010 in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, set aside the same and consequently allow the Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioners:Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondent :Mr.K.Balasundaram ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 23.03.2011, made in I.A.No.1 of 2010, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009, on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai. 2.The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the appellant in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009. It has been stated that the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.109 of 2010, in O.S.No.173 of 2008, for amending the description of the suit scheduled properties, forming a part of the plaint filed in O.S.No.173 of 2008, on the file of the Sub- ordinate Court, Pudukottai. The said interlocutory application had been allowed by the trial Court, by its order, dated 19.07.2010. While so, the petitioner had preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009, before the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, against the order of the trial Court dismissing the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.413 of 2008, praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from dealing with the suit schedule properties, till the disposal of the suit. 3.During the pendency of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1 of 2010, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009, praying that the appellate Court may be pleased to order the amendment in the description of the suit scheduled properties, as prayed for by the petitioner. However, the appellate Court had dismissed the said interlocutory application, by its order, dated 23.03.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first appellate Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.1 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for carrying out the necessary amendments in the description of the suit schedule properties, since, the trial Court had already granted such a relief, by its order, dated 19.07.2010, made in I.A.No.109 of 2010 in O.S.No.173 of 2008. Therefore, the Principal District Court, Pudukottai, had erred in rejecting the claim by dismissing in I.A.No.1 of 2010, filed by the petitioner in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009. 5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the appellate Court was right in dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, in I.A.No.1 of 2010, for carrying out certain amendments in the description of the suit schedule properties, in O.S.No.173 of 2008, on the file of the Sub-ordinate District Court, Pudukottai District. He had further submitted that the petitioner, having already obtained the relief before the trial Court, ought not to have filed I.A.No.1 of 2010, before the appellate Court, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009, for a similar relief. 6.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court ought to have allowed the necessary amendments at the appellate stage, in C.M.A.No.10 of 2009, as it is seen that the trial Court had already passed an order, on 19.07.2010, for carrying out the necessary amendments, as prayed for, by the petitioner in I.A.No.109 of 2010, in O.S.No.173 of 2008. Even though the amendments sought for by the petitioner ought to have been carried out, when the matter was pending before the trial Court, it cannot be held that it would be inappropriate for the appellate Court to do the same, when the matter is pending before it. In such view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai. Ssm CRP.PD(MD) No.2100 of 2011 of MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 RP/2P/2C. 14.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/