At the stage of dealing with applications seeking amendment, Court is not expected to deeply indulge in evaluating respective cases of parties.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common order dated 30.04.2013 passed in I.A.Nos.660/2012 & 788/2012 in O.S.No.205/2011 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. I have heard Sri P.S.P.Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy & Sri S.Laxminarayan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. They filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of a land admeasuring Ac.3.27 gts in Sy.No.374/A, situated in Kadipikonda village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District. They also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.229/2011 seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The learned trial Court on the said application directed the parties to maintain status quo. The plaintiffs fully described the property in the schedule annexed to the plaint as well as to the petition specifying the extent and boundaries. The defendants filed written statement contending inter alia that the northern and southern boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are incorrect and they gave the northern and southern boundaries in the written statement which according to them are correct. Soon after filing of the written statement, the plaintiffs did not seek any amendment of the boundaries but at a subsequent stage, however, before the commencement of the trial filed I.A.Nos.660/2012 & 788/2012 seeking amendment of the northern and southern boundaries in the plaint as well as the petition schedules. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed CRP.No.4891/2012 before this Court. Learned single Judge of this Court having felt that the contentions of the parties were not properly considered while disposing of the amendment petitions, remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to consider the documents filed by both the parties in detail with reference to their respective contentions and to find out whether the amendment is necessary on account of mis-description of the northern and southern boundaries in the schedule.

5. After remand, the learned trial Court passed the impugned common order dated 30.04.2013 in I.A.Nos.660 & 788 of 2012 dismissing the said petitions. Against the said common order, the present revision petition is filed by revision petitioners/plaintiffs.

6. In the impugned order, the learned trial Court expressed the view that if the proposed amendment is allowed, it would introduce a new cause of action and cause prejudice to the defendants not only in the present suit but also in another suit filed by them in O.S.No.50/2011 (O.S.No.46/2012 new); further expressing the view that the plaintiffs did not take steps seeking amendment immediately after noticing the mistake, but took steps only after filing the written statement by the defendants and also after obtaining the order of status quo in the interlocutory application for injunction filed by them.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the trial Court by taking a totally erroneous view which is contrary to the settled legal principles governing the amendments contemplated under Or.6 Rule-17 CPC, dismissed the amendment petitions and the impugned common order being illegal is liable to be set aside in the present civil revision petition.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the learned trial Court rightly held that the proposed amendment would introduce new cause of action and cause prejudice to the defendants and therefore the impugned order needs no interference in this civil revision petition.

9. Admittedly, in this case, the plaintiffs gave the boundaries which are mentioned in the sale deed under which they became entitled to the suit property. It is also a fact that in the agreement which was executed prior