1. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the order dated 23.07.2012 made in I.A.No.87 of 2012 in O.S.No.5989 of 1997 on the file of XVI Additional Judge I/C. of XVIII Additional District and Sessions Court, Chennai.

2. It is the case of the revision petitioner is that he, as a plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order 37 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code against the respondent herein in O.S.No. 5989 of 1997, on the file of the 16th Additional Judge, in charge 18th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai for recovery of money. In the said suit the defendants 1 to 4 have filed their written statement. Thereafter on 14.03.2012 the revision petitioner/ plaintiff gave evidence as PW1 and he was also cross examined by the defendants.

3. It is the further case of the revision petitioner is that during the course of his cross examination, it is recorded that “the signatures contained in the plaint is not that of him” but he never answered like that during cross examination, however, it was recorded as stated above in line numbers 16 and 17 at page No.1 in his deposition dated 14.03.2012. According to the revision petitioner, he is Jain by birth and not known Tamil and he knows only Hindi and English. After his cross examination his signature was obtained without reading it to him and he has also signed without reading deposition. Only in the forthcoming cross examination, on verification he came to know the above said mistake. Therefore in order to delete/struck off line No.16 and 17 at page No.1 in the deposition dated 14.03.2012, the revision petitioner took out an application in I.A.No.87 of 2012 under Order 6, Rule 16(B) of CPC.

4. The respondent herein filed counter affidavit and strongly opposed the said application on the ground that the petition filed under Order 6, Rule16 (B) is not maintainable, which is meant only to struck out or amend any matter and any pleadings. Here, the revision petitioner wanted to delete his admission made before the trial Court as PW-1 during the course of his cross examination.

5. The learned trial judge on a careful consideration of the case on either side, dismissed the application. Aggrieved over the same the present civil revision petition is filed.

6. I heard Mr.V.Boopathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.C.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record.

7. It is seen from the records that the plaintiff was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendants on 14.03.2012 and on that day in the cross examination of PW-1 at line numbers 16 and 17, it was recorded that “the signatures contained in the plaint is not that of mine (plaintiff)”. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the plaintiff being Jain by birth, do not know Tamil, and knows only English and Hindi. On 14.03.2012 after cross examination was over the plaintiff has put his signature in the deposition. The plaintiff having filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant would not depose that the signatures contained in the plaint are not that of him. The said mistake came to be noticed only during the next date of his cross examination. Thereafter immediately the revision petitioner filed petition to delete his cross examination line numbers 16 and 17 at page No.1. Though the learned judge has held that the above mentioned two lines would have recorded mistakenly, dismissed the application on the ground that the particular evidence in the cross examination of the revision petitioner is not the only point to decide the case of the plaintiff or the defendant.

8. It is necessary to note what is the Order 6 Rule 16(b) of C.P.C. and it is reads as follows:

“16 (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or”

9. A perusal of impugned order further reads that the evidence of PW-1 was not recorded before the learned judge who decided the applicatio