The main legal point established in the judgment is that after the passing of a preliminary decree, only genuine mistakes and clerical errors could be corrected, and the schedule itself as found in the preliminary decree could not be amended as sought for by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.219 of 2002 are the revision petitioners in all the Civil Revision petitions.

2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.219 of 2002 for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties.

3. Written statement has been filed by the respondents/defendants and after contesting the suit on merits, the trail court passed a preliminary decree on 8.4.2004 in so far as the first item of the suit schedule properties is concerned.

4. Thereafter, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.153 of 2005 for passing final decree. An advocate Commissioner was appointed in the final decree application who inspected the first item of the suit schedule property and submitted a report. After going through the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it was found by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs that, the first item of the suit schedule properties as shown in the plaint did not give proper particulars with regard to its boundaries. Therefore, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.164 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the four boundaries in the first item of the suit properties as shown in the plaint. They also filed I.A.No.165 of 2006 to amend the preliminary decree by correcting the four boundaries as per the report of the advocate-Commissioner. I.A.No.166 of 2006 has been filed by them to make similar amendments in the petitions filed in I.A.No.153 of 2005 filed by them to pass a final decree. All the applications were resisted by the respondents/defendants by filing a counter, wherein it is stated that, the amendments sought for are quite against evidence of the parties and if allowed, it would lead to fresh litigation.

5. After filing I.A.No.164 of 2006 to 166 of 2006, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed another three applications in I.A.No.57 to 59 of 2007. These applications have been filed to amend the typographical error in I.A.No.164 to 166 of 2006 wherein they sought for amending the ‘word’ ‘Keelavidhikku Therkku’ and to replace the same with ‘Keelavidhikku Kilakku’. Thus, it is very clear that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs first wanted to amend the boundaries of the first item of the suit schedule property in the plaint, in the preliminary decree and in the petition filed in I.A.No.153 of 2005, to pass a final decree. Thereafter, after finding that the particulars given in I.A.No.164 to 166 of 2006 are incorrect, they filed I.A.No.57 to 59 of 2007 for further amendment as stated above. These applications were also resisted by the respondents/defendants by filing a counter wherein it is stated that, all these amendments if allowed would lead to inconsistency and therefore, they are also to be dismissed.

6. The court below, by six different orders dated 17.8.2007, dismissed all the six applications and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs in the suit have filed the above six revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents and judgments filed in support of their submissions.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that what was sought for by the revision petitioners is to amend the boundaries of the first item of the suit schedule property as noted by the advocate Commissioner in his report and these amendments would not in any way alter the nature and character of the suit. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the following decisions:

1. 2006 (5) C.T.C. 580 ( Kaliathal Vs Murugathal and others)

2. 2006 (5) C.T.C. 609=2007-1-L.W.32 (F.B.) (Hi.Sheet Industries vs Litelon Limited)

3. 2006 (5) C.T.C. 475=2006-4-L.W.817 (Kodiammal Vs Sarangapani)

4. 2008 (2) C.T.C.224 2008-3-L.W.53 (Puran Ram Vs Bhaguram & another)

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that no illegality is fou