P.Nallasivam vs N.Kesavan
2025 Latest Caselaw 5219 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5219 Mad
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2025

Madras High Court

P.Nallasivam vs N.Kesavan on 23 June, 2025

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N. Sathish Kumar

                                                                                          CRP.Nos.2898 & 2899 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED : 23.06.2025

                                                            CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                             C.R.P.Nos.2898 & 2899 of 2023

                    P.Nallasivam                                                     .. Petitioner in both CRPs
                                                              Versus
                    1.N.Kesavan
                    2.Subbathal
                    3.Padmavathi                                                .. Respondents in both CRPs

                    Prayer in CRP.No.2898 of 2023:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
                    Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in
                    I.A.No.175 of 2021 in O.S.No.112 of 2018 dated 11.04.2023 on the file of
                    the learned Principal District Judge, Erode.

                    Prayer in CRP.No.2899 of 2023:- Civil Revision Petition filed under
                    Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in
                    I.A.No.175 of 2021 in O.S.No.112 of 2018 dated 11.04.2023 on the file of
                    the learned Principal District Judge, Erode.
                    In both CRPs
                            For Petitioner              :      Mr.C.Ramaraj
                                                   COMMON ORDER

Challenge has been made to the common order passed by the learned

Principal District Judge, Erode dismissing the applications filed under

I.A.No.175 of 2021 and I.A.No.176 of 2021 by the plaintiff permitting the

amend the plaint in the above suit and permitting to amend the compromise

petition in the above suit respectively, the present revisions have been filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:13 am ) CRP.Nos.2898 & 2899 of 2023

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed

the above suit for partition and that during the pendency of the suit, the

parties had entered into a compromise, that therefore, a compromise

petition had filed before the Trial Court and a compromise final decree was

passed on 24.04.2018. It is the grievance of the petitioner that there are

some errors both in the plaint and in the compromise petition, hence, filed

the applications in I.A.No.175 of 2021 for amending the plaint and

I.A.No.176 of 2021 for amending the compromise petition. The Trial Court

dismissed the applications vide common order dated 11.04.2023 relying on

the judgment of this Court in the case of Pappathi vs. The Chairman, State

Legal Services Authority and 3 others made in WP.No.34025 of 2018 dated

22.03.2022. Challenging the common order, the present revisions are filed.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

other side had made an endorsement of no objection in both the application

for rectifying the mistakes, since, it is only bonafide typographical

mistakes. Hence, seeks for corrections.

4. In view of the objections made in the application before the Trial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:13 am ) CRP.Nos.2898 & 2899 of 2023

Court, this Court directed the parties to be present before this Court.

Therefore, except the third defendant, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and

2 in the suit in O.S.No.112 of 2018 are present before this Court and they

are identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is brought to the

notice of this Court that the third defendant had died, since, no immovable

properties were allotted and only monetary consideration was passed on to

her, this Court is of the view that her legal heirs are also not necessary.

5. The plaintiff/petitioner had stated the following mistakes are krept

in the plaint and compromise petition:

i. In the suit “A” schedule property in 6th item, the north south cart

track running in R.S.No.649/1 of Kollankoil Village was wrongly typed as

S.No.640/1 of Kollankoil Village.

ii. In the suit “C” schedule property in 1st item, the properties in

R.S.No.1111/6 is admeasuring Punjai Hectare 0.07.75 due to oversight,

the said extent wrongly typed as Punjai hectare 0.77.5.

iii. The suit “B” schedule property 15th item “Punjai Hectare 0.33.30”

has to be removed and to be typed as “Punjai hectare 0.64.5”. Further, in

continuation “in this southern part” to be removed and add “in this

property”. In the same item schedule boundary “RSF.No.1145/3, belongs

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:42:13 am ) CRP.Nos.2898 & 2899 of 2023

to SadayappaGounder”, has to be removed and to add “Sivashanmugam

and Pragaspathi” and in the northern boundary particulars “in the

northern side” has to be removed and to add “within this punjai acre

0.74.60” and in the 15th item last to add “Now the said property is within

new sub division at Natham RSF.No.1145/3, Punjai hectare 0.30.20.

6. The respondents/defendants submitted that they have no objection

in carrying out the necessary amendments in the plaint as well as the

compromise petition.

7. In view of the above, since, the mistakes are typographical errors

and the defendants have no objections in making the above amendments,

though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Compack Enterprises

India Private Limited v. Beant Singh reported in (2021) 3 SCC 702, has

held that the Constitutional Court, in exercise of its inherent power, may

unilaterally rectify a consent decree suffering from clerical or arithmetical

errors, as the final decree has been passed, this Court is of the view that the

trial Court shall make the necessary amendments in the final decree itself.

8. Accordingly, the common order passed by the learned Principal