NACHAMMAL Vs. CHELLAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE printing the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE epitome of relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: THE first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No,395 of 2006 as against the respondents 2 and 3 seeking the following reliefs: Tamil While so, the revision petitioners/proposed defendants 3 and 4 filed I.A.No,250 of 2007 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the Court to get themselves impleaded as defendants 3 and 4. During the pendency of the said I.A, another I.A No,691 of 2007 was filed so as to amend certain alleged typographical errors in the I.A.No,250 of 2007 after hearing both the sides, the lower Court dismissed the I.A.No,691 of 2007. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds interalia thus: THE order of the lower Court is against law for the reason that the revision petitioners merely wanted the typographical errors to be corrected in the I.A filed by them, but it was unjustifiably dismissed.

(3.) AS such, the order of the lower court in I.A.No,691 of 2007 is unsustainable and accordingly it is set aside by allowing this Civil Revision Petition and consequently the said I.A.No,691 of 2007 shall stand allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.