The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment to correct a clerical mistake in the survey number of the property does not introduce a new cause of action or case.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 23.03.2015 made in I.A.Nos.129 and 130 of 2013 in O.S.No.533 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

2. The issues and the parties involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and therefore, disposed of by this common order.

3. The first petitioner is one of the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants 2 to 8 in O.S.No.533 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. The first petitioner along with her sister, Lakshmi filed the said suit against the respondents for declaration and possession. The said suit was decreed on 11.11.1993, only with regard to declaration and relief of possession was rejected. The petitioners filed A.S.No.814 of 1995 against dismissal of relief of possession before this Court and the same was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2009. This Court granted both the reliefs of declaration and injunction. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents filed S.L.P (Civil) No.13327 of 2011 and when the same was taken on file, an affidavit of undertaking dated May 2011, agreeing to vacate the premises on or before 14.10.2011 and surrender the vacant possession was filed. The said S.L.P was dismissed. The respondents did not surrender the vacant possession as agreed upon. The petitioners filed E.P.R.No.14 of 2010 for possession and delivery was ordered. Delivery warrant was issued on 20.10.2011 when the Court Amin went along with Village Administrative Officer. It was found that the Re-Survey number was wrongly mentioned as 329 instead of 330. The petitioners have filed two applications I.A.Nos.129 and 130 of 2012 to correct the survey number in schedule to the plaint and decree in O.S.No.533 of 1988. According to the petitioners, the Resurvey number was wrongly given due to clerical mistake. Unless the mistake is corrected, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and will not be in a position to realise the fruits of decree.

4. The respondents filed separate counter affidavits and took similar stand and contended that by amendment, a new case is introduced and the property in R.S.No.330 was not an issue in the suit, Appeal before this Court and S.L.P before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The respondents agreed to vacate and hand over the property to the petitioners only in R.S.No.328. The petitioners have filed the present applications to grab the property of the respondents in R.S.No.330.

5. The learned Judge by the order dated 23.03.2015, dismissed both the applications on the ground that petitioners have not filed any document to show that schedule of the property in R.S.No.329 was mentioned instead of R.S.No.330 and they have not mentioned on what basis, the R.S.No.329 was mentioned instead of R.S.No.330 and after obtaining the decree in the suit of the year 1988 and two appeals, the amendment sought for is not maintainable.

6. Against the said order of dismissal dated 23.03.2015 made in I.A.Nos.129 and 130 of 2013 in O.S.No.533 of 1988, the present two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge is not correct in holding that by amendment in Re-Survey number, a new case will be introduced. The petitioners have correctly given boundaries and only one Re-Survey number has been wrongly given due to clerical mistake. The learned Judge has dismissed both the applications on technical ground based on the objection of the respondents. The respondents have not objected to survey number given in the schedule to the plaint and has not mentioned the correct survey number. The parties contested the suit, Appeal and S.L.P, knowing the correct property and at no point of time, there was any doubt about the identity of the property. The respondents have not disputed the correctness of the boundaries given in the plaint.

8. The learned counsel for the petitione