ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 2nd and 7th defendants in O.S.No.303 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam, questioning the order dated 25.09.2020 in I.A.No.728 of 2017.

2. The suit in O.S.No.303 of 1996 had been filed by the 1st respondent seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and also for costs.

3. In the schedule it had been stated that the property is situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration District, Melperadikuppam Village.

4. The plaint was amended by order of the Court in I.A.No.1155 of 2014 and in the amended plaint, the description of property was stated to be situated in Avarapakkam Sub-Registration District, Melkpakkam Village.

5. The suit proceeded and on 31.01.2017, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the 2nd and 7th defendants who are the revision petitioners herein filed A.S.No.24 of 2017 which is now pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.

6. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.728 of 2017 under Section 152 of CPC seeking to amend the decree by deleting Avarapakkam Sub-Registration and adding Vallam Sub-Registration District in the plaint as initially filed. It was also sought that in the amended plaint, in the description of the property, Avarapakkam Sub-Registration district and Melkpakkam Village may be deleted and Vallam Sub-Registration District and Melperadikuppam village must be added. In the decree, it was sought that Avarapakkam Sub-Registration, Melkpakkam Village must be deleted and Vallam Sub-Registration District and Melperadikuppam Village must be added.

7. A counter was filed on behalf of the revision petitioners that the said amendment should not be permitted and that A.S.No.24 of 2017 is now pending.

8. However, by order dated 25.09.2020, the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, had observed that it was only typographical error which is sought to be rectified and the identity of the property is not in doubt and it is only the Sub-Registration district which has to be actually changed and also the correct name of the village had been given in the plaint as originally instituted, but was wrongly given in the amended plaint and that the amendment would not go to the root of the case and can be permitted under Section 152 of CPC and therefore, allowed the application. Questioning such order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

9. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / defendants 2 and 7 and Ms.C.Jayachitra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff.

10. It is contention of Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, that the amendment goes to the root of the issue and cannot be corrected since Section 152 of CPC is quite narrow in its scope. The learned counsel in this regard placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in (2009) 3 LW 486 (Mad), Alamelu V. Kunjalam. The learned Single Judge, in that case had placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (1) LW 618 (SC), State of Punjab V. Darshan Singh.

11. It is the contention of Ms.C.Jayachitra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent / plaintiff, that is only a typographical error with respect to primarily the Sub-Registration District where the properties were situated and restoration of the correct name of the village and stated that they are genuine clerical mistakes and do not change the character of the suit and do not change the nature of the property and do not change the identity of the property. The learned counsel therefore stated that the principles as laid down for invocation of Section 152 of CPC in 2004 (1) LW 618 (SC), State of Punjab V. Darshan Singh, are satisfied and that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioners by permitting amendment as sought in I.A.No.728 of 2017.

12. The