The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of post-trial amendments under Order 6, Rule 17, 18 of CPC, emphasizing that such amendments can be allowed if they do not alter the nature or character of the suit, do not prejudice the other party, and do not defeat the law of limitation.

The instant Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioners, as against the order dated 24.07.2015 passed in I.A.No.115 of 2015 in O.S.No.88 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.

2. Aggrieved over dismissal of their application seeking for an amendment of plaint scheduled properties, the revision petitioners are before this Court assailing the said order.

3. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the above suit in O.S.No.88 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai for the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and to declare the sale deeds in document Nos.172/99, 285/99 and 2308/99 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thirupuvanam, as null and void.

4. According to the revision petitioners, the suit properties were purchased by the 1st petitioners husband and the father of the petitioners 2 to 4 namely Aadhimoolam. The said properties were self acquired properties of said Aadhimoolam and till his life time, it was under the possession of said Aadhimoolam and thereafter his demise, the properties devolved upon the revision petitioners and they are in peaceful possession of the properties. Though during the life time of Aadhimoolam, a General Power Deed came to be executed in the name of the 1st respondent by the said Aadhimoolam and later came to be cancelled, the respondents herein lawlessly executed several sale deeds by playing fraud by concealing the cancellation of General Power Deed and thereby they encumbered the suit properties. Therefore the above suit came to be filed as against the respondents herein for the relief’s stated supra. The respondents filed written Statement denying the case of the plaintiff and they sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. In the said suit on the plaintiffs’ side, P.W.1 stood examined and on the defendants’ side, 1st defendant namely Rameela was chief examined as D.W.1 and the suit was posted for cross examination of D.W.1.

6. In the said circumstances, the revision petitioners came up with an application under Order 6, Rule 17 and 18 of CPC, seeking for an amendment over the extent of the suit property. It is the case of the revision petitioners, that in para 4 of the plaint an extent of 2 acres remain erroneously mentioned as situated in northern side and in the Description of Plaint suit property, an extent of 1 acre 34 cent is erroneously stated to be situated in the southern side.

7. Both the mistakes are due to inadvertence, oversight and due to typographical error and the same are required to be struck down. Therefore the revision petitioners filed the above Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.115 of 2015 for the relief of amendment as stated above. However, the Learned trial Judge on misconception of law and facts has dismissed the revision petitioners’ application vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2015. Challenge is made to the said order by the revision petitioners in this civil revision.

8. I heard Mr. V. Nagendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. K. Gokul, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on records.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the erroneous mentioning of suit property in para 4 and the description column of the plaint are due to inadvertence and oversight and the same is neither willful nor wanton. In fact those mistakes came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, only during the cross examination of P.W.1, whereby P.W.1 precisely found and instantaneously stated that the description of the property is mistakenly stated. Thereupon the revision petitioners filed the above interlocutory application in I.A No.115 of 2015, seeking for an amendment by way of striking down a piece of property from the suit properties.

10. The amendment sought by the revision petitioners is bona-fide and the same do not alter the nature of th