J. Vathsala v. A. Parthasarathy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP

. Nos.4369 to 4371 of 2025

¶1J.Vathsala

2.B.Vidyalakshmi ... Petitioner in all petitions Vs.

¶1A.Parthasarathy A.Rathinakumar (Died)

¶2A.Ramanathan

¶3A.Shanmuganatham

¶4A.Senapathy

¶5R.Maduradevi

¶6R.Kasi Viswanathan

¶7R.Saravana Manickam

¶8R.Sivagami

... Respondents in all petitions COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order dated 29.08.2025 in I.A.SR.Nos.4452 to 4454 of 2025 in O.S.No.277 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur number and dispose the same in accordance with law by appreciating the above stated facts and circumstances. For Petitioner in all petitions : Mr.V.Karthikeyan COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the Docket Order dated 29.08.2025 in I.A.SR.Nos.4452 to 4454 of 2025 in O.S.No.277 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur number and dispose the same in accordance with law.

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all these petitions.

¶3The parties have entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat and an award came to be passed on 06.05.2021. It is the case of the revision petitioners that pursuant to the award being passed, the mistake in the boundaries has been noticed and hence, the petitioners moved an application before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur seeking modification of the award to incorporate the correct boundaries in the schedule to the property. However, the said application was returned on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to rectify the mistakes in the boundaries mentioned in the award passed by the Lok Adalat.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Compack Enterprises India Private Limited Vs. Beant Singh reported in (2021) 3 SCC 702 wherein it is held that even in a consent decree, it is permissible for the Court to rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake. In the present case, correction sought for is only to replace the wrong boundaries mentioned in the schedule of properties. In fact, notices have also been served on the respondents, who are all parties to the award and they have also expressed no objections. In view of the above, I am inclined to set aside the docket order dated 28.09.2025 and the amendment sought for by the petitioner is to be allowed. The trial Court shall direct its Registry to carry out necessary amendments and issue fresh order copy on the parties. Registry is directed to return the original application to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of one week. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

11.09.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No dh To The Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam P.B. BALAJI,J. dh CRP

. Nos.4369 to 4371 of 2025

11.09.2025