KOTHANDAM Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 21.4.2008 passed in I.A.No,433 of 2008 in O.S.No.147 of 200s by the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.) Anim-adverting upon the order dated 21.4.2008 passed in I.A.No,433 of 2008 in O.S.No.147 of 200s by the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, this civil revision petition is filed.

(2.) A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the civil revision petition, could be portrayed thus: The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.147 for 2002 seeking the following reliefs: Tamil The petitioners/defendants filed the written statement. When the trial was proceeding on the petitioners/defendants' side, the respondent/plaintiff has chosen to file the I.A.No,433 of 2008 seeking the following amendments: Tamil The trial Court allowed the said I.A. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds.

(3.) IN my considered opinion such a doubt is unwarranted at this stage for the reason that P.W.1-Murugesan, in his deposition itself clearly stated that the patta in favour of the respondent/plaintiff's predecessors refers to Survey No,218/7. IN this factual matrix, I am of the view that it is not a simple case of getting corrected the typographical error. If there is only a clerical mistake or typographical error, the same could be corrected, dehors Order 17 Rule 6 of C.P.C. also. However, at this juncture, my mind is reminiscent of the following decision of the Honourable Apex Court: 2008(4) TLNJ 588(CIVIL)- Vidyabai And Others Vs. Padmalatha And Another, certain excerpts from it would run thus: