Madras High Court
CRP/6485/2026 of K.Abdul Rahman Vs C.Uma on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6485 of 2026
&
CMP.No.27905 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012013992026}
K.Abdul Rahman
S/o. A.M.K.Abdul Hameed,
Proprietor of 77 (Seven Seven)
Ladies Garments, Old Nos.19 & 20,
New No.36, Dr.Natesan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
...Petitioner
Vs
C.Uma, W/o. S.Chandran,
Rep. by her Power of Attonery
Agent S.Natarajan,
Residing at Old Nos.19 & 20,
New No.36, Dr.Natesan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
...Respondent
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order and decretal order dated 24.6.2026 made in
I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.1111 of 2025 on the file of the 22nd
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner:
Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The above civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 24.6.2026 made in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.1111 of 2025 on the file of the 22nd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai (for short, the Court below) wherein the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend the schedule of the plaint from 3,140 sq.ft. to 350 sq.ft., came to be allowed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant.
3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking for the relief of delivery of possession and for damages. While the said suit was filed, in the schedule of property, the total extent was shown as 3,140 sq.ft. Later, the petitioner/defendant filed a written statement refuting the reliefs sought for by the respondent/plaintiff and apart from denying various averments, took a stand that he is not in possession of 3,140 sq.ft. and that he is in possession of only 350 sq.ft. Thus, the extent of the suit schedule property has been put to challenge by the petitioner/defendant.
5. When the said suit was at the stage of trial, the respondent/plaintiff filed the said application seeking amendment of the schedule of property from 3,140 sq.ft. to 350 sq.ft. The said application was allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed before this Court.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the amendment that was allowed by the Court below does not, in any way prejudice the petitioner/defendant. Even the admitted case of the petitioner/ defendant is that he is in possession of only 350 sq.ft. Therefore, as rightly found by the Court below, the amendment does not change the character of the said suit and it merely corrects the extent of the suit schedule property. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity warranting the interference of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the above civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed.
08-10-2026 To The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. RS
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6485 of 2026& CMP.No.27905 of 2026 08-10-2026