ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order in I.A. No. 1330 of 2015 in O.S. No. 145 of 2014 dated 09.09.2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry.

2. The Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the Suit in O.S. No. 145 of 2014. He has filed the suit for declaration of title with regard to B Schedule property and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants 4 and 5 to make necessary correction in the settlement register.

3. Pending the suit, the petitioner herein preferred the application in I.A. No. 1330 of 2015 to amend the plaint.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that if the alleged amendment is barred by 25 of Settlement Act even allowed it is of no use and it is mere waste of time of Court.

5. Therefore against the order of the trial Court in I.A. No. 1330 of 2015 in O.S. No. 145 of 2014 dated 09.09.2019, the petitioner is before this Court with the present prayer.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff, he filed the suit for declaration of title over the B Schedule property and also for a mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents 4 and 5 to make necessary correction in the settlement register and also in the field map respectively. To that effect, the petitioner gave an application dated 28.04.2010 to the Tahsildar, Villianur. He made an observation that correction in the EMP register has to be done by the 5th respondent/defendant and instructed through the letter dated 19.02.2013 advising him to approach the Civil Court as the respondents/defendants 7 and 8 objected. Therefore, he filed the petition before the trial Court to amend the petition in order to make the entry in the settlement register. He gave detailed amendment in the petition. The trial Court after considering the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, dismissed the petition on the ground that the relief sought for by way of proposed amendment is barred under Section 25 of the Settlement Act, Pondicherry. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trial court misunderstood Section 25 of the Settlement Act that the provision is concerned to modification of any assessment made in this Act, not concerned with correction of mistake in the records. Therefore, the dismissal order of the trial court is unsustainable and unjust in law. The amendment is allowed, the plaint will be affected and reiterated other grounds raised in the revision grounds and pleaded to set aside the order of the trial and allow the Revision Petition.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the order of the trial Court, he also reiterated that Section 25 of the Settlement Act barred the suits in Civil Court and pleaded to dismiss the Revision Petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

9. The Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the Suit in O.S. No. 145 of 2014. He had filed the suit for declaration of title with regard to B Schedule property and also for mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents 4 and 5 to make necessary correction of the settlement register. The plaintiff has filed the amendment petition before the Civil Court as per the instruction of the settlement of his letter dated 19.02.2013 to approach the Civil Court for make necessary correction in the settlement register.

10. I have considered the Section 25 of the Settlement Act enabling the provision and baring suits in Civil Court under Section reads as follows:

“25. (1) No suit lie in any civil Court to set aside or modify any assessment made under this Act.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the decision of any authority or officer under this Act shall be final and no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which by or under this Act is required to be decided or dealt with by