1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2145 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Nagalakshmi Ammal 2.The Tahsildar, Thanjavur. 3.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the District Collector, Thanjavur District & Munsifi. ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 07.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.399 of 2010 by the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karnan For Respondent : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar No.1 for M/s.Sarbhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar 2 and 3 Government Advocate ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.399 of 2010 by the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.399 of 2010 on the file of the Court below for the relief of mandatory injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to amend the plaint as set out in the petition. The Court below has dismissed the same, since relevant document has not been produced on the side of the petitioner/plaintiff. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the suit property is comprised in old Survey No.420/1B and new Survey No.420/84, but in the plaint, it has been mentioned vice-versa and in order to rectify the same, the present petition has been filed, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that even though in the affidavit filed along with the present petition, it has been stated that the discrepancy has been found out only after seeing patta and the said patta has not been produced and under the said circumstances the dismissal order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference. 5. It is seen from the records that in the plaint, it has been specifically stated that old survey number of the suit property is 420/84 and new survey number is 420/1B. Now it is contended in the present petition that old survey number is 420/1B and new survey number is 420/84. Therefore it is quite clear that in the plaint survey numbers have been erroneously given and in order to set right the same, the present petition has been filed. 6. Considering the fact that no new survey number has been introduced and no new facts have been mentioned in the present petition, this Court is of the view that the dismissal order passed by the Court below is totally erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.399 of 2010 by the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur is set aside and the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.82 of 2011 in Original Suit No.399 of 2010 is allowed without costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.44312 + 1 cc to M/s.Sarbhauman Associates, SR No.43987 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2145 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 15.12.2011 smn RJ/2.1.12 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/