Madras High Court
CRP/4331/2026 of Maarathal Vs Subbathal on 18 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.4331 of 2026
& CMP.No.18953 of 2026
1.Maarathal
2.Masathal
..Petitioners
Vs
1.Subbathal
2.Marathal
..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 30.03.2026 made in I.A.No.7 of 2026 in A.S.No.66 of 2021 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, as unsustainable and allowing this revision and allow I.A.No.7 of 2026 filed under Section 152 of CPC by directing correction of the accidental erroneous factual observation contained in paragraph No.13 of the judgment dated 10.10.2025 in A.S.No.66 of 2021, without altering the findings or operative portion of the judgment.
For Petitioners:
Mrs.Narmadha Sampath
For Respondents:
Mr.Krishnakumar
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
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
This revision petition has been filed by the respondents in A.S.No.66 of 2021 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The respondents were defendants in O.S.No.674 of 1997. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, as against which, the respondents herein preferred A.S.No.66 of 2021. The appeal, on contest, was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. It is an admitted fact that as against the order of remand, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the revision petitioners and the same is pending before this Court.
2. I have heard Mrs.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Krishnakumar, for M/s.Sarvabauman Associates, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Mrs.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the First Appellate Court had misinterpreted the stand taken by the petitioners in the written statement, while extracting the summary of the written statement. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.7 of 2026 under Section 151 of CPC, seeking amendment of the judgment, which in all fairness, ought to have been entertained.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would firstly contend that the application ought not to have been filed under Section 151 of CPC and the application should have been filed under Section 152 of CPC, which provides for correction of inadvertent errors and typographical mistakes alone. He would further state that the petitioners sought for amendment of the judgment, which, according to the petitioners, has wrongly recorded the stand of the petitioners. He would state that this cannot be styled as an inadvertent error, warranting entertainment of an application under Section 152 of CPC as well. He would further state that in any event even assuming the Appellate Court had misinterpreted the stand of the petitioners, it does not in any way prejudice either of the parties and their shares do not get affected in any manner. He would therefore pray for the revision being dismissed.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Though the application should have been filed under Section 152 of CPC, merely because it has been filed invoking Section 151 of CPC, is not a ground to dismiss the application. Mere wrong quoting of provision of law, at best, is only a technical objection that can be put against the applicant and not a material ground to dismiss the application.
7. Under Section 152 of CPC, no doubt, errors which are inadvertent or typographical or arithmetical in nature can be corrected, not only on application, but also suo motu by the Court. It is in this regard that I.A.No.7 of 2026 was filed by the petitioners. I find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Appellate Court has not correctly extracted the pleadings, namely the written statement of the petitioners, who were respondents in the first appeal, while summarising the written statement.
8. However, at the same time, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, even assuming there was a daughter by name, Periammal, the said daughter died as a spinster and intestate and therefore, it has not in any way affected the shares of the parties to the lis, who are claiming only under Marudhaiyan, who is said to have died, leaving behind two wives. Therefore, the fact of Marudhaiyan’s sister being born/existing whether admitted or denied, pales into insignificance. In such view of the matter, I do not see how any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, by the First Appellate Court misconstruing the pleadings, namely the written statement filed by the petitioners. Therefore, I do not see any necessity for the application to correct the judgment to be entertained, as it would be an exercise in futility.
9. However, at the same time, it is made clear that the wrong summary of written statement shall not be put against the petitioners, in future proceedings, namely either in the CMA before this Court or subject to the result of the CMA, either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court.
10. With the above observation and direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.4331 of 2026 18.08.2026