1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1189 and 1190 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Sammanasu Ammal .. Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff in both C.R.Ps. Vs. 1.Packialakshmi 2.M.Sebastian .. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants in both C.R.Ps. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 01.03.2011 and 06.04.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.518 and 607 of 2009 in Original Suit No.407 of 2008 respectively by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnasamy in both C.R.Ps. For Respondents : No appearance in both C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.518 and 607 of 2009 in Original Suit No.407 of 2008 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.407 of 2008 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the petition in Interlocutory Application No.518 of 2009 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. She has also filed another application in Interlocutory Application No.607 of 2009 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose mentioned therein. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has dismissed Interlocutory Application Nos.518 and 607 of 2009. Against the dismissal orders, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. Even though the respondents have been served with the summonses, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of on merits on the basis of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has repeatedly contended that the plaintiff is the mother of the second defendant and she has purchased the suit property by utilising her sridhana amount under a registered sale deed dated 14.02.1980 and the second defendant is not having any manner of right, title and interest over the suit property and he sold the suit property in favour of the first defendant and under the said circumstances the plaintiff is bound to state that the suit property is her absolute property and to that extent the plaint filed in Original Suit No.407 of 2008 has to be amended and therefore the petition in Interlocutory Application No.518 of 2009 has been filed and the Court below without considering the nature of the stand taken on the side of the revision petitioner has erroneously dismissed Interlocutory Application No.518 of 2009 and the revision petitioner as petitioner has also filed another petition in Interlocutory Application No.607 of 2009 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and the Court below has simply dismissed the same and therefore the orders passed by the Court below in both the petitions are liable to be set aside. 5. For considering the submissions made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the necessary averments made in the plaint. In paragraph No.4 of the plaint, it has been clearly stated that the second defendant is the only son of the plaintiff and both of them have jointly purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 14.02.1980. In paragraph No.5 of the plaint, it has been specifically stated that both the plaintiff and second defendant have jointly enjoyed the suit property. The revision petitioner as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.518 of 2009 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit her to make amendments in the plaint as set out in the petition. In the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.518 of 2009, it has been stated that the suit property is the absolute property of the petitioner/plaintiff and the same has been purchased by her by utilising sridhana funds. 6. As adverted to earlier, in the plaint it has been specifically stated that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff and second defendant jointly under a registered sale deed dated 14.02.1980 and further it has been specifically stated that the plaintiff and second defendant have had enjoyed the suit property jointly. Considering the main averments made in the plaint and also considering the nature of the amendments sought to be amended in the plaint, it is needless to say that the plaintiff has made inconsistent plea with regard to source of title. In fact the revision petitioner/petitioner/ plaintiff has made a faint attempt so as to introduce a new case by way of filing Interlocutory Application No.518 of 2009. Since the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to take inconsistent plea by way of amendment, it is very clear that the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.518 of 2009 is liable to be dismissed and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same. 7. The revision petitioner/petitioner/ plaintiff has filed another petition in Interlocutory Application No.607 of 2009 under Order XXVI, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose mentioned therein. It has already been pointed out that Original Suit No.407 of 2008 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.407 of 2008, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of noting the physical features of the suit property does not arise. The Court below after considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.407 of 2008 as well as the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.607 of 2009 has rightly dismissed the same. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error nor illegality in the orders passed by the Court below and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.518 and 607 of 2009 in Original Suit No.407 of 2008 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul are confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul. Smn GH : 01.12.2011 : 3p/2c COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.1189 and 1190 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 21.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/