ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated January 31, 2023 passed by 'the District Munsif Court, Udumalaipettai' ['Trial Court' for brevity] in I.A.No.772 of 2022 in O.S.No.96 of 2011, the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents herein are the Defendants in the Original Suit in O.S.No.96 of 2011 on the file of the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The Plaintiff filed the Suit for partition and other relief against the Defendants. In the plaint, it has been stated that the Plaintiff and the First Defendant are Sister and Brother born through the second wife of Malli Chettiar, who passed away about 23 years before the Suit. The third Defendant is the son of Malli Chettiar born through his first wife. Malli Chettiar, Plaintiff, Defendants 1 and 3 were living jointly. The mother of the Plaintiff passed away 25 years before the Suit and Malli Chettiar passed away intestate in the year 1987 leaving the Plaintiff, Defendants 1 and 3 as his legal heirs/legal representatives to succeed his estate. The plaint further reads that the first Defendant is not married till date (as on the date of Suit). At the instance of the first Defendant, a family arrangement took place in the year 1990, in which, the Suit Properties were allotted to the share of the Plaintiff and first Defendant jointly while the other properties of Malli Chettiar were allotted to the third Defendant. The first Defendant was in actual possession and enjoyment of the property allotted to him and Plaintiff. The first Defendant was paying the Plaintiff's share amount periodically till the end of December 2009. Then, in the month of January 2011, when the Plaintiff approached the first Defendant for her share amount for the year 2010, the first Defendant started giving evasive answers. Later, in the month of January 2011, the Plaintiff came to know that the first Defendant had entered into Sale Agreement with the second Defendant for the sole purpose of defeating the valuable rights of the Plaintiff in the Suit Properties. Hence the Suit for partition and permanent injunction against the first Defendant.

4. When the Suit was posted for trial after filing of written statement by some of the Defendants, the Petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application under Order VI Rule 17 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] seeking to amend the plaint. The details of amendment sought to be made is hereunder:-

"DETAILS OF AMENDMENT

1)In para 3 of the plaint, “Who died about 23 years ago” has to be amended as “Who died about 70 years ago”.

2)In para 7 of the plaint, “Mother of the plaintiff also died about 25 years ago” has to be amended as “Mother of the plaintiff also died about 47 years ago”.

3)In para 7 of the plaint, “Malli Chettiar died intestate in the year 1987” has to be amended as “Malli Chettiar died intestate in the year 1950”.

4)In para 9 of the plaint, “This being so in the year 1990” has to be amended as “This being so in the year 1987”.

5)In para 13 of the plaint, “The properties described hereunder except the plaintiff” has to be amended as “The properties described herewith along with the plaintiff, 1^st defendant, 3^rd defendant, 7^th defendant and one Subbammal”.

6)After para 13, a new para has to be added as follows:

“13(a). The plaintiff, late. Subbammal, Nachammal, late. Natrayasamy, Saraswathi are the sons and daughters through the 1^st wife Ponammal, wife of Malli Chettiar. The 1^st defendant Subramaniam is the son of the second wife Mylathal. The 4^th defendant Mallika Arjunan, the 5^th defendant Ponraj are the sons of the deceased Natrayasamy. The 8^th defendant Kanagaraj, 9^th defendant Thiyagaraj, 10^th defendant Rukmani, 11^th defendant Manoranjitham and 12^th defendant Neelavathy are the sons a