CRP/5909/2026 of Subha Vs Amirhtammal(Died) 1.Chellappan on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in U.N.I.A SR. No.5482 of 2020 in O.S.No.149 of 2007 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpet, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out the correction in the suit schedule by correcting the total extent as 77 cents instead of 96 cents as was claimed in the suit.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and also went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.149 of 2007 seeking for the relief of specific performance based on the agreement of sale dated 09.09.2004. This suit was decreed ex parte and thereafter, an execution petition was filed in E.P No.111 of 2017 for execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner/decree holder. Originally, the extent of the suit property was described as 96 cents. However, on going through the revenue records, it came to light that the total extent works out to only 77 cents. Under such circumstances, the draft sale deed submitted based on the decree was returned to correct the total extent. It is under these circumstances, the application came to be filed before the Court below to make the necessary correction by limiting the total extent to 77 cents.

4. The Court below, even without numbering the application, has rejected the petition on the ground that if the said correction is made, it will cause prejudice to the judgment debtor and that apart, the application has been filed under Sections 152 and 153 CPC which only permits the Court to correct the accidental or clerical or arithmetic errors and not the error that is pointed out by the petitioner wherein the petitioner is attempting to confine the total extent to 77 cents instead of 96 cents.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below could have entertained this application as an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, more particularly, since the petitioner is not attempting to increase the total extent and the total extent is reduced to 77 cents instead of 96 cents. The Court below had rejected the application even at the SR stage. The petitioner, having the advantage of the decree, should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree in view of the discrepancy in the extent.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in U.N.I.A SR. No.5482 of 2020 in O.S.No.149 of 2007 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpet, is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to the

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. gm/aj Court below to deal with the application as if it is filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm/aj To The Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpet. Civil Revision Petition No.5909 of 2026