.....had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition &
conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948.
sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of.....orders. jagadeesan, j.1. the revision has been filed against the order of dismissing the application for amendment. the petitioner is the plaintiff in o.s. no. 33 of 1998 on the file of the sub court, karur which suit was laid for specific performance. pending the suit, the petitioner filed la. no. 588 of 2001 seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the alternative relief of advance amount paid by him. the said application was dismissed by the court below. as against the same, the present revision has been filed.2. when the amendment is sought for the inclusion of the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount, there cannot be any option for the respondent to oppose the same. in case, if the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of specific performance, naturally he will be entitled for the refund of the advance amount subject to the conditions stated in the terms of the agreement. hence, the amendment cannot be refused on technical ground. accordingly, the order of the court below is set aside and the revision is allowed. time of four weeks from today is granted to the petitioner to carry out the amendment. thereafter, the respondent is granted two weeks time for filing additional written statement, if any. there will be no order as to costs. consequently, c.m.p. no. 22777 of 2001 is closed.