Amendment for typographical error in property description allowed despite trial commencement if no prejudice or surprise caused.

ORDER

Heard Mr.Suriya for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.M.Suresh for the respondent.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as their ranks in the suit.

3.The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner. She presented a suit in O.S.No.29 of 2020 for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was presented through a power agent, by name, Shaul Hameed. When the plaint was presented, the suit property was shown as SF.No.181/1 of Rethinakkottai Village, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

4.Summons were served on the defendant. The defendant filed a detailed written statement, including denying the aspect that no such S.F.No.181/1 exists in the field.

5.On the basis of these pleadings, issues were framed and the parties went for trial.

6.The power agent was examined as P.W1. He was cross- examined on 04.06.2025. The cross-examination was on several aspects, including the survey number. The plaintiff, alleging that she came to know about the error in the survey number only during the course of cross-examination, filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2025 for amendment. The only relief sought was to delete S.F.No.181/1 and to substitute it with S.F.No.185/1.

7.This application was stoutly resisted by the defendant, stating that the application has not been filed with due diligence and hence, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. It was further pointed out that the suit has been pending in the list for trial for more than three years and only thereafter, the application came to be presented.

8.The learned Trial Judge, on the basis of the affidavit and petition, took up the application for disposal. He referred to several judgments of this Court and that of the Supreme Court and came to a conclusion that the application does not deserve any consideration.

Consequently, he dismissed the same. Hence, this revision.

9.Ms.Suriya urged that the amendment seeks to correct a mere typographical error, which is capable of correction, at any stage. She pointed out that the suit is being prosecuted through a power agent and at the time of drafting, instead of showing the suit property as S.F.No.185/1, it was shown as S.F.No.181/1. She states that, by amending the schedule, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant.

10.Per contra, Mr.Suresh states that the defendant had brought this aspect to the notice of the plaintiff by way of his written statement, which had been filed on 14.07.2021. The plaintiff did not take any steps, despite this aspect has been brought to her notice. The amendment application itself came to be presented only after the trial has commenced and that too on 22.08.2025.

11.He relies upon the judgment of this Court in D.Prasannam Vs. Gomathi and another , CRP(MD) No.2169 of 2018,, dated 17.04.2024, to argue that under similar circumstances, this Court had dismissed the plea for amendment. Hence, he seeks for confirmation of the order passed by the Trial Court.

12.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have gone through the records.

13.A perusal of the schedule shows that this is not a suit on a vacant land. The suit property has a house on it. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is a Government Poramboke land on which she had erected a superstructure and had been residing therein. It is her further case that, as the defendant attempted to interfere with the possession, she was constrained to move the suit for bare injunction.

14.Mr.Suresh is right that in the written statement, in paragraph No.10, the defendant had pointed out that S.F.No.181/1 does not exist on the field. When such a ple