A.Subramanian v. A.Chellammal

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.12.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN and C.M.P.(MD).No.4129 of 2024 1.A.Subramanian 2.Valarmathi 3.Susila 4.Balamani ... Petitioners/Respondents/Judgment Debtors Vs.

1.A.Chellammal 2.P.Vasantha 3.P.Saroja 4.S.Vanitha 5.P.Sadaiammal ... Respondents/Petitioners/Decree Holders PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.343 of 2003, dated 06.03.2020 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Karuna For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan for R1 Mrs.V.Sujatha for R2 & R3 Mr.K.Pandi Priya for R4 & R5 1/5

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.343 of 2003, dated 06.03.2020 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The facts in brief:

Suit in O.S.No.343 of 2003 was filed by the respondent herein seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their 5/9th share. The suit was decreed with cost. After that final decree application was filed. That was also allowed. Later I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiff/decree holders, stating that at the time of final decree proceedings, the Commissioner found that in the plaint, item No.4 is wrongly mentioned. The correct survey number is only 747/1A3. But it was wrongly mentioned as 744A/8. During the course of trial process there was no issue between the parties over the identity of the property. Only survey number was wrongly mentioned. So it must be corrected by way of amendment.

3.That was resisted by the revision petitioner stating that the 2/5

survey number was wrongly mentioned, but with intention. The second appeal was preferred, now pending before this Court. The trial Court after finding that there was no issue with regard to the identity of the fourth item decreed the suit. So the survey number which was wrongly mentioned in the plaint may be ordered to be corrected by way of amendment. Against which, this revision is preferred. 4.The Commissioner report is filed in I.A.No.556 of 2017 is placed before the Court. Item No.4 is mentioned as S.No.747/1A3. As mentioned by the respondent, it is the correct survey number found out by the Commissioner at the time of taking out the measurement. In the plaint, the survey number is mentioned as 744A/8 which is apparently mistake.

But this mistake was not found out during the course of trial or appellate stage because there is no issue with regard to the identity of the properties. So no discussion was made by the trial Court in this aspect. So the contention on the part of the revision petitioner that there was intentional omission or mistake on the part of the respondent is not supported by any circumstantial evidence.

revision is liable to be dismissed.

5.Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10.12.2024 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No TM To 1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Section Officer, E.R. Section/V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

TM 10.12.2024 5/5