- (1.) This Revision is directed against the Order of the trial Court with reference to the amendment of the description of the plaint schedule property. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has contended that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale with reference to 1,000 sq.ft. (approximately). However, the vendors were entitled to 946 sq.ft. as per the final decree for partition passed in O.S. No.891 of 1967 and the same also was confirmed in the Second Appeal No.805 of 1972.
(2.) On a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the amendment is permitted. Moreover, the respondents are also not taken by surprise by the petition filed by the revision petitioner for the amendment of the plaint schedule. Though the respondents 1 to 11 have been served with notices and their names have been printed in the list, they have neither appeared in person nor represented by any counsel. The respondents 12 to 19 have been dispensed with.
(3.) In the said circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside allowing the amendment of the plaint schedule in the suit in O.S. No.72 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.18525 of 1997 is closed.;