A.Suresh Kumar Vs a.Jayarani (Died), 1.Sengole

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the docket order dated 17.12.2025 made in I.A.Sr.No.24058 of 2025 in O.S.No.757 of 2012 on the file of the Learned II Additional Sub-ordinate Court at Coimbatore and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Rajasekar

¶19

1

¶20

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

¶21

CRP No. 679 of 2026

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner has taken out an application before the trial Court under Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C, seeking to amend certain typographical errors and boundary description, which has been incorrectly described in the schedule of properties. The decree was passed based on a compromise. The request for amendment was not opposed by any of the parties to the suit.

¶25

However, in view of the fact that the decree was passed based on the compromise, the trial Court has returned the application. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶26

Mr.M.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that even though the Suit was disposed of on compromise, the Court is not without any power to come to rescue the parties, when an inadvertent error is pointed out, which would cause serious prejudice to the parties and effectively nullify the decree concerned.

¶27

In fact, I find that all the parties to the suit have expressed no objection

¶28

that the typographical error and boundary description to be corrected. But, I do

¶29

2

¶30

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

¶31

CRP No. 679 of 2026

¶32

not see how the Court is lacking any power to permit such amendment, despite the decree being a compromise decree, especially when all the parties to the suit

¶33

have expressed no objection for necessary changes to be effected in decree.

¶34

In the light of the above, I am inclined to pass the following directions:

¶35

(i) The docket order dated 17.12.2025 made in I.A.Sr.No.24058 of 2025 in O.S.No.757 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Sub-ordinate Court, Coimbatore is set aside.

¶36

(ii) Registry is directed to return the original application in I.A.Sr.No.24058 of 2025 to the learned counsel for the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of webcopy of the order being uploaded in the Madras High Court website, enabling the petitioner to represent the same.

¶37

(iii) On such representation, the trial Court shall number the application in I.A.Sr.No.24058 of 2025 in O.S.No.757 of 2012 and shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶38

3

¶39

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

¶40

CRP No. 679 of 2026

¶41