ALAMELU Vs. KUNJALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S.No.219 of 2002 are the revision petitioners in all the Civil Revision petitions.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed O.S.No.219 of 2002 for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties.

(3.) AFTER filing I.A.No.164 of 2006 to 166 of 2006, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed another three applications in I.A.No.57 to 59 of 2007. These applications have been filed to amend the typographical error in I.A.No.164 to 166 of 2006 wherein they sought for amending the -word- -Keelavidhikku Therkku- and to replace the same with -Keelavidhikku Kilakku-. Thus, it is very clear that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs first wanted to amend the boundaries of the first item of the suit schedule property in the plaint, in the preliminary decree and in the petition filed in I.A.No.153 of 2005, to pass a final decree. Thereafter, after finding that the particulars given in I.A.No.164 to 166 of 2006 are incorrect, they filed I.A.No.57 to 59 of 2007 for further amendment as stated above. These applications were also resisted by the respondents/defendants by filing a counter wherein it is stated that, all these amendments if allowed would lead to inconsistency and therefore, they are also to be dismissed.