Dismissed¶28

Prabkaran v. Minor Ramya

Madras HC16 Jul 2026CRP/3856/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Abdul Quddhose J., 16-07-2026) in CRP No.3856 of 2026 and CMP No.16906 of 2026 dismisses the revision against the Additional Sub Court, Ariyalur's order allowing plaintiffs' amendment of the plaint in O.S. No.386 of 2023 to correct the marriage date of the second plaintiff (typographical error: 2011 typed instead of 2010); defendants' rights protected through additional written statement and cross-examination; no prejudice, no infirmity; CRP dismissed, CMP closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, the connected CMP No.16906 of 2026 was closed, and no costs were awarded. ¶28

Prabkaran Vs Minor Ramya — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRP No. 3856 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 3856 of 2026 and CMP No. 16906 of 2026

¶6

Prabakaran

¶7

Prabavathi

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Minor Ramya Rep. by Guardian/Next Friend, Mother Rajeshwari

¶11

2.Rajeshwari

¶12

3.Rajakumari

¶13

4.The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office, Keelapalur, Ariyalur Tk.

¶14

5.The District Collector Collector Office, Ariyalur 621 704.

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

PRAYER

¶17

To set aside order and decretal order passed in IA.No.10 of 2026 in OS.No.386 of 2023 dated 01-04-2026 passed by the Learned Addl.Sub Judge Ariyalur.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): K.Karuppaiya Mooppanar For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Balakrishnan, Govt. Counsel for R4 & 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRP No. 3856 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sub Court, Ariyalur in I.A. No.10 of 2026 in O.S. No.386 of 2023.

¶23

2.Under the aforesaid order, the application filed by respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs seeking to amend the pleadings with regard to the date of the marriage of the second plaintiff has been allowed. According to respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, there was a typographical error in the plaint with regard to the date of marriage of the second plaintiff. According to respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs, in the plaint, it was mistakenly typed as 2011 instead of 2010.

¶24

3.The petitioners before this Court are defendants 2 and 3. They have challenged the impugned order. Their rights have been adequately protected in the impugned order by observing that they have every right to file the additional written statement and they will also get the chance to cross examine the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly observed that allowing the amendment application will not prejudice the rights of the defendants in the suit. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order as reasons have been given by the Trial Court for allowing the amendment application.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRP No. 3856 of 2026

¶27