ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) REVISION Petition 1076 of 2000 is directed against the order in IA No. 1049 of 1998 in OS No. 108 of 1986 dated 3-12-1999 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry wherein the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed under Section 152 CPC to amend item no. 2 of plaint schedule by substituting RS No. 583/2 in the place of RS No. 583/6.

( 3 ) REVISION Petition 1541 of 2000 is directed against the order in IA No. 670 of 1998 in OS No. 108 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry wherein the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed under Section 151 CPC to amend item No. 2 of petition schedule by substituting RS No. 583/2 in the place of RS No. 583/6.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a suit in O. S. No. 108 of 1986 against the defendants for cancellation of two settlement deeds dated 16-8-1984 and 16-8-1984 purported to have been executed by late Kollapu Veerayya in favour of the defendants and for partition of the plaint schedule property. Plaint a schedule consists of Items 1 and 2. Item No. 1 of plaint a schedule is situated at Palacherla village in RS No. 583/2 of an extent of six acres whereas Item No. 2 of plaint a schedule is situated at Palacherla village in RS No. 583/2 in an extent of Ac. 1-14 cents and in RS No. 583/6 in an extent of Ac. 1-15 cents. The said suit was decreed on 17-9-1996. Against the said judgement and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal AS No. 1490 of 1997 to this Court and this Court granted interim stay of passing of final decree and later the stay was made absolute. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application in LA No. 668 of 1997 in the lower Court for partition of the property in terms of preliminary decree. At the time of inspection of the property by the Commissioner, the plaintiffs noticed that there is a mistake in mentioning the correct survey numbers in respect of Item No. 2 of plaint schedule. According to the plaintiffs, the correct survey number is RS No. 583/2 and the same is mentioned by mistake as RS No. 583/6 in item No. 2 of plaint schedule. The plaintiffs therefore submitted that they may be permitted to amend the plaint insofar as item No. 2 of plaint schedule by substituting RS No. 583/2 instead of RS No. 583/6.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the trial Court found that though the mistake in description of survey number appears to be a bona fide one, but it refused to interfere with the matter on the ground that the appeal is pending in this Court and therefore directed the petitioners to workout their remedies for amendment of the plaint with regard to the description of correct survey numbers before appropriate forum. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioners are before this Court contending that Court below having found that the mistake in giving the survey numbers as 583/2 instead of 583/6, should have allowed the amendment and it is also contended that the amendment petition is maintainable even though an appeal against the preliminary decree is pending in the High Court and that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of Sections 152 and 153-A of CPC and also the decisions cited before it and particularly the one reported in AIR 1962 SC 633.

( 6 ) MR. M. S. K. Sastri learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though an appeal is pending before this Court, it is not a bar to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on the lower Court under Section 152 CPC to correct the plaint and the decree when the lower Court found that the mistake is a bona fide one committed by the petitioners iq giving the correct survey numbers. It is further submitted that unless the judgment and decree passed by the Court is merged with the order of the appellate Court, the trial Court is empowered to ame

Click Here to Read the rest of this document