This revision is filed against the order dated 12.11.2009 in I.A. No.174 of 2009 in O.S. No.327 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.327 of 2001. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.174 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment of names of neighbours of southern and western boundaries of the suit schedule property, and for recovery of possession etc.

3. The case of the revision petitioner is that after filing the suit, it was found that in the plaint schedule, the surnames on south and west neighbours were wrongly mentioned due to mistake. The southern neighbours are Somulamma and Golagani Appalanaidu.

The surname of Somulamma was mentioned by mistake as Koyya instead of Murukuti, and another existing owner on south was not mentioned. Somulamma is popularly known as Koyya Somulamma because she is tall like a Koyya and the western neighbour’s name was mentioned as Koyya Perayya and in fact he sold away his site to Vantakula Naidu and he constructed a house, and the surname of Perayya was mistakenly mentioned as Koyya instead of Doddi. Therefore, there is necessity to amend the plaint schedule. It is his further case that he constructed RCC slab house in the schedule property. Respondent taking advantage of dismissal of I.A. No.1875 of 2001, which was filed for temporary injunction, and appeal in C.M.A. No.57 of 2004, his influence as employee in Panchayat and with the help of revenue and police officials, trespassed into the suit schedule property and dispossessed the revision petitioner. To that effect, the revision petitioner gave complainants to Police but no action has been taken and therefore, he is advised to seek possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, it is just and necessary to permit the revision petitioner to amend the plaint as follows: for southern boundary neighbours: Murukuti Somulamma and Golagani Appalanaidu and for western boundary neighbours: Vantakula Naidu and previously Doddi Perayya, and to add Para III (C) “subsequently after filing of the suit and recently the defendant taking advantage of his employment in Panchayat and his acquaintance and help of revenue and police officials and also due to dismissal of temporary injunction petition and the CMA, trespassed into the plaint schedule property and dispossessed the plaintiff and therefore the defendant is bound to deliver back the possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff” and to renumber Para III (c) as III (d) and to add “for possession of plaint schedule property” before other reliefs etc.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the application and stated that he, with the permission of Government, occupied Government site in S.No.242/2 of Sabbavaram and constructed a thatched house therein in the year 1979 and the same was assessed to property tax by Gram Panchayat, Sabbavaram under Assessment No.839 and was enjoying the same. Later due to natural decay, heavy rains and floods, the thatched house of the respondent was collapsed and during the month of November,2000, he started construction of slab house at the site where the old thatched house existed and the same is completed and the slab house is bounded by: East: building of Mahila Mandali, South: Slab house of Murukuti Somulamma, West: House of Doddi Perayya and North: G.T. Road and later his slab house was also assessed to property tax vide Assessment No.1520 and thus, the respondent, who occupied the site in S.No.242/2 has been enjoying the same with absolute rights by constructing the thatched house earlier, and by constructing RCC slab house subsequently, and