IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 5.10.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.R.P.(PD) No.4138 OF 2009 Malla Naicker ... Petitioner vs. 1. Ramakkal 2. M.Natarajan 3. M.Thambiraju 4. Rajammal @ Marakkal ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and final order dated 23.10.2009 made in I.A.No.140 of 2009 in O.S.No.245 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani. For petitioner : Mr.T.Murugamanikkam O R D E R
The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.245 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Bhavani, is the revision petitioner. This is a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial started and while the plaintiff’s side evidence was going on, the plaintiff came to know that in the second item of the suit schedule properties in the plaint, instead of putting the word “north”, the word “south” has been wrongly typed and it came to know only when the witnesses were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the other side. It is also stated in the affidavit that in the second item of the properties, the respondents did not claim any right and that in the suit for permanent injunction, the boundary particulars are to be properly mentioned and hence, the amendment application has to be allowed. It is further stated that the proposed amendment would not prejudice the rights of the respondents and the cause of action of the suit would not be altered.
2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the allegations contained in the affidavit are false. It is incorrect to state that by typographical error, the mistake has crept in and the proposed amendment is not related to any documentary evidence. Hence, the petition is to be dismissed.
3. The learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani, has dismissed the application by observing that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that under which document he is claiming the amendment.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. It appears that the word of “south” appearing for the second time in the same schedule can only be a typographical error. Since already a word “south” of east west and common well has been typed there, the word “south” coming for the second time should have been typed wrongly. It is not necessary that the relevant document has to be produced to support the allegations in the affidavit with reference to the amendment. Allowing of amendment would not in any way alter the nature and character of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the other side also. In such circumstances, the amendment petition has to be allowed. The order above challenged before this Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
lan
To:
I Additional District Munsif Court,
Bhavani