B.Dhanalakshmi Vs The idol of Arulmighu Balasubramaniaswamy

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to accept this undertaking affidavit the suit in O.S.No.279 of 2025, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, within the time stipulated fixed by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Anbarasan

¶20

For R1 & R3 : Mr.P.Aathimoola Pandian

¶21

For R2, R4 & R5 : Mr.J.Ravindran AAG assisted by Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶24

2.The matter is listed today under the caption for maintainability.

¶25

3.This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to accept the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner in the suit in O.S.No.279 of 2025, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.

¶26

4.The undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is as follows:-

¶27

“I, B. Dhanalakshmi, wife of Baskaran, Hindu, aged about 65 years and formerly resided at No.1, Lakshmipuram, South Street, Karur Town and presently residing at No.8, Gandhi Salai South, Narathaganasaba

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

CRP(MD). No.188 of 2026

¶31

Road, Karur 639 001 do hereby declare that regarding the subject matter of this suit, no litigation is pending before any Court or there is no previous orders from any Appellate Court or Higher Court of Law and declare that no proceedings whatsoever either pending or disposed of on the basis of case filed by then interested parties on the subject matter of the case.”

¶32

5.On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner in the plaint has categorically admitted that the property belongs to the temple. Having made such a clear and unequivocal admission before the trial Court, the petitioner is estopped from taking a contrary stand in the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶33

6.Further, the petitioner has filed an amendment application before this Court seeking to alter the nature of the relief. Such an amendment, even if sought, cannot be entertained or given effect to in a Civil Revision Petition, as the scope of Revision is limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order under challenge, based on the records of the Court below. The attempt of the petitioner to improve her case by way of amendment at the Revisional stage is impermissible in law and cannot be countenanced.

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

CRP(MD). No.188 of 2026

¶37

7.In view of the admission made by the petitioner regarding the

¶38

ownership of the property and the limited scope of interference under Revisional jurisdiction, this Court finds that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly, dismissed, granting liberty to both the parties to raise their contentions before the trial Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶39