IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE CRP No. 2503 of 2025 & C.M.P. No. 14331 of 2025 Smt. Pappathi ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Perumal 2. Mariammal 3. Subramani 4. Annamalai 5. Arul 6. Selvam 7. Chandrammal ..Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order dated 26.04.2023 passed in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in O.S. No. 356 of 2014 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem District. For Petitioner :: Mr.S. Udayakumar for M/s. Karan and Uday 1\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Respondents :: Mr.L.G. Sagadevan for R2 to R5 O R D E R This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Salem in I.A. NO. 1 of 2019 in O.S. No. 356 of 2014. 2. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit seeking for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC has been dismissed on the ground that no material has been produced by the petitioner for seeking amendment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the father of the 1st defendant in the suit has been wrongly mentioned by the petitioner in the plaint and the amendment application was filed only to rectify the said mistake. 4. Admittedly, the father of the 1st defendant has nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants. There was no necessity for the petitioner to file an amendment application to rectify the name of the father of the 1st defendant. 2\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Though the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that no material was placed on record by the petitioner for rectifying the alleged mistake, this Court is of the considered view even if there is no material produced by the petitioner, the amendment sought for by the petitioner is unnecessary when the petitioner is only seeking for rectifying the name of the father of the 1st defendant and not the name of the 1st defendant. 5. 5. The suit is of the year 2014 and the civil revision petition has been filed in the year 2025 and no useful purpose will be served if the order of interim stay, which was granted earlier in this civil revision petition, is allowed to continue, as it will not be in the interest of justice. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P.is closed. 06.07.2026 nv To The Principal Sub Court, Salem. 3\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J. nv C.R.P. No. 2503 of 2025 06.07.2026 4\4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis