Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The epitome of relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.395 of 2006 as against the respondents 2 and 3 seeking the following reliefs:
VERNACULAR ( TAMIL ) PORTION DELETED While so, the revision petitioners/proposed defendants 3 and 4 filed I.A.No.250 of 2007 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the Court to get themselves impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. During the pendency of the said I.A, another I.A No.691 of 2007 was filed so as to amend certain alleged typographical errors in the I.A.No.250 of 2007; after hearing both the sides, the lower Court dismissed the I.A.No.691 of 2007. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds interalia thus:
The order of the lower Court is against law for the reason that the revision petitioners merely wanted the typographical errors to be corrected in the I.A filed by them, but it was unjustifiably dismissed.
3. A bare perusal of the impugned order of the lower Court coupled with the typed set of papers would demonstrate and display that glaringly and pellucidly, palpably and plainly, demonstrably and obviously the lower Court misunderstood the factual circumstances and simply misapplied the law and dismissed the I.A. The main I.A.No.250 of 2007 has been filed by the revision petitioners to get themselves impleaded on certain grounds and it is for the Court to decide that I.A on merits. But, I.A.No.691 of 2007 was filed only for the purpose of getting corrected the name of their mother's brother's name as Nachimuthu Gounder instead of Perianna Gounder in as much as according to the revision petitioners, erroneously the said Nachimuthu Gounder's father's name, viz., Perianna Gounder was mentioned there. The first respondent/plaintiff, it appears unnecessarily objected for such amendment as though the said amendment was sought in order to suit the certificate of heirship obtained by the revision petitioners. The first respondent/plaintiff also contended that the revision petitioners were not necessary parties to the suit.
4. To the risk of repetition, without being tautologous, I would like to highlight that at present I.A.No.250 of 2007 is still pending and it is for the parties to litigate on that and get a reasoned judgment from the lower Court. But now, the I.A.No.691 of 2007 is only for getting corrected the I.A.No.250 of 2007 and in my considered opinion, there is no ground for rejecting the amendment. It is for the proposed defendants 3 and 4 to convince the Court in I.A.No.250 of 2007 about their relationship with the Nachimuthu Gounder and it is premature on the part of the lower Court to take any decision on that.
5. As such, the order of the lower court in I.A.No.691 of 2007 is unsustainable and accordingly it is set aside by allowing this Civil Revision Petition and consequently the said I.A.No.691 of 2007 shall stand allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vj2 To The District Munsif, Dharapuram