O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.06.2016 made in I.A. No.157 of 2014 in I.A.No.176 of 2010 in O.S. No.26 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Cheyyar.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the original suit.

3. The petitioner /plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2005 before the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Cheyyar, seeking for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule property . The Trial Court partly allowed after considering oral and documentary evidence, by Judgment and Decree dated 24.03.2008 as the plaintiff/petitioner herein is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties and decreed the suit as prayed for. Being Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and decree, the Defendants preferred the First Appeal in A.S. No.15 of 2008 on the file of the District Judge, Tiruvannamalai. After hearing both sides, the First Appellate Court dismissed the same and upheld the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court by Judgment dated 29.04.2009. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the Defendant has filed the Second Appeal in S.A. No.1612 of 2010 before this Court seeking to set aside the aforesaid Judgment. After hearing both sides, this Court partly allowed the second appeal by Judgment dated 20.09.2011 holding that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the first item of ancestral property and so far as the second item of the property is concerned, the plaintiff is entitled 1/4th share in the suit property as held by Courts below. Subsequently, the plaintiff has filed final decree petition in I.A.No.176 of 2010 before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed I.A. No.157 of 2017 in 176 of 2010 in O.S. No.26 of 2005 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking to amend the boundaries ans survey number of the suit schedule of Property in the final decree petition. The Trial Court dismissed the I.A. No.157 of 2014 holding the reason that the petitioner never mentioned after due diligent only this mistake has occurred. Being not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the same.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is some correction in the boundaries and survey number with regard to item No.2 schedule property, the petitioner has filed the I.A. No.157 of 2014 to include the same in the final decree petition in which there is no dispute as to right over of the petitioner in the 2nd Item of schedule mentioned property. While this Hon'ble Court upheld that the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share in the item No.2 property which has attained finality, the petitioner should be allowed to amend the boundaries and survey numbers related to Item No.2 of suit schedule property. The Trial Court without appreciating the aforesaid factual aspects, dismissed the aforesaid I.A while the petitioner is entitled 1/4th share in the item No.2 of the suit property. If the amendment is not carried out in the petition, the Trial Court cannot effectively pass final decree in consonance with the Judgment of High Court since the boundaries and survey numbers are wrongly mentioned in the previous petition.

5. It has been further submitted that when the necessity to amend the Item No.2 of suit property with correct particulars arose only after the pronouncement of the Judgment by this High Court whereas the Trial Court has erred in holding that the petitioner has never mentioned that after due diligent only this mistake occurred. Hence, seeks to set aside the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the Sub-Court, Cheyyar.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that once the case has been taken for cognizance by the First and Second Appellate Court, now the application for amendment is unsustainable. After