The citation of an incorrect provision of law in an application does not invalidate the proceedings or the relief granted, provided the court possesses the inherent power or authority to grant the requested relief under its procedural mandate.

Headnote:This Civil Revision Petition arises under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order permitting the transposition of defendants as plaintiffs. The petitioner argued that the application was legally flawed under O.XXIII R.1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court determined that a mere misquoting of a legal provision does not invalidate an application if the relief sought is otherwise maintainable under the law. The central issue is whether the transposition of defendants as plaintiffs is rendered invalid solely due to the citation of an incorrect provision of law. The Court affirmed the settled ratio that procedural technicalities regarding the incorrect mention of a statutory provision do not preclude the granting of relief, provided the court has the authority to grant such relief under the broader framework of the Code. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of revision petition against transposition order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. misquoting legal provisions does not invalidate maintainable relief. (Para 3 , 4)

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Sub Court at Udumalpet in I.A.No.6 of

2025 in O.S.No.337 of 2018.

2.The aforesaid application was filed by the plaintiff in the suit, seeking to transpose the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as plaintiffs 2 and 3. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the 1^st defendant in the suit has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3.The 1^st defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition on the ground that Order XXIII Rule 1A of C.P.C. does not permit the plaintiffs to file an application to transpose the defendants as plaintiffs in the suit. The petitioner has only raised a technical defence, namely quoting wrong provision of law for I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.337 of 2018.

4.The law is well settled that even if wrong provision of law is quoted, if the relief can be granted, quoting wrong provision of law will not affect the result of the Interlocutory Application. In view of the settled law, the petitioner cannot rely upon the wrong quoting of the provision of law for filing the application by the plaintiff for seeking to transpose the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition.

5.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASAbdul Quddhose, JRajeswari – AppellantVersusValliammal – RespondentC.M.P. No.9725 of 2026 | I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.337 of 2018

The citation of an incorrect provision of law in an application does not invalidate the proceedings or the relief granted, provided the court possesses the inherent power or authority to grant the requested relief under its procedural mandate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Abdul Quddhose, J
Rajeswari – Appellant
Versus
Valliammal – Respondent
C.M.P. No.9725 of 2026 | I.A.No.6 of 2025 in O.S.No.337 of 2018