This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23 February, 2012, in I.A.No.118 of 2011 in O.S.No.28 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint and decree schedule.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on the strength of a sale agreement. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court.

3. The petitioner, long after the decree in O.S.No.28 of 2008, filed an application in I.A.No.118 of 2011, to amend the plaint, on the ground that instead of 22 Jadiyadi', it was wrongly recorded in the plaint as 2 Jadiyadi'. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that by permitting such amendment, the very nature of the suit would be changed. The order dated 23 February, 2012, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has got ample powers under Sections 152 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure, to amend clerical mistakes, which includes mistake in the plaint. According to the learned counsel, the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the application on the ground of delay and the possible change in the nature of the suit.

5. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

ANALYSIS:

6. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2008 before the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. It was a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 07 July, 2010.

7. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for amendment.

8. It is true that the application for amendment was filed only after a period of one year. The petitioner has taken up a contention that the correct measurement is 22 Jadiyadi and it was wrongly mentioned as 2 Jadiyadi in the plaint in O.S.No.28 of 2008. The petitioner has also taken up a contention that Ex.A.1 contains the correct measurement.

9. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether an application for amendment of the plaint is maintainable after decreeing the suit.

LEGAL POSITION:

10. In Abdul Kader v. Chinnaswamy Padayachi [AIR 1980 Madras 116], a learned Judge of this Court considered the scope of Sections 151, 152 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure and observed that even errors that have crept in the plaint, could be amended by resorting to these provisions. The observation reads thus:

"8........................................................ ...................................Of course, the inherent 'powers are Intended for exceptional cases and are non intended to enable courts to ignore the provisions of law which govern procedure nor could all the inherent powers of a court be used in order to relieve a party from the consequences of his own mistake or to enable him to evade the law of limitation. The Code has reserved to every court 'under Section 151 the inherent power to make such orders as should be made ex debito Justitiae, and every court should have In view. The shortening of litigation preventing duplication of proceedings, and saving the parties from harassment and expenses. Where a purely clerical error is brought to the notice of a High Court when it is seized of the matter as court of appeal, it can, correct the error, and extensive powers of amendment may be exercised under Sections 151 and 153. The provisions of Section 152 give power to the court not only to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decrees or orders but also errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and such correction may be done at any time by the court, even without an application by any of the parties (vide (1941) 2 Mad LJ 452). The court's powers of amendment are not restricted to errors that have crept in the judgment or decree but extend to errors that have crept in plaint, decree, sale certificate etc. Where a