.

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

1. The unsuccessful petitioners filed this revision against the order dated 28.04.2014 in I.A. No. 1866 of 2013 in O.S. No. 585 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. The Petitioners who are plaintiffs initially filed the suit in O.S. No. 585 of 2007 for specific performance of agreement for sale. Prior to it one S. Gopal Reddy filed a suit in O.S. No. 417 of 2007 for declaration of title against the Petitioners and both the suits were clubbed and evidence was lead in O.S. No. 417 of 2007. After evidence let in by both sides and before advancing arguments, the Petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C seeking permission to interchange the boundaries on northern and southern side stating that there was a typographical mistake in the schedule annexed in O.S. No. 585 of 2007. In the said I.A. the Respondents filed counter affidavit and contended that on the aspect of boundaries D.Ws 2 to 5 were cross-examined and if the proposed amendment is allowed, by changing the boundaries of the schedule land which is more particularly elicited in the cross-examination, there is every possibility to the Plaintiffs to fill up the lacunae and prayed to dismiss the application.

2. After hearing both sides and after perusal of the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application holding that the petitioners could not explain the delay in seeking amendment to get over the rigidity of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. basing on the expression of this Court in Veluri Raja Rajeswari V. Veluri Santhansagar Reddy.

3. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioners/Plaintiffs preferred the present revision contending that the Court below failed to appreciate that the mistake in the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule is an inadvertent one and typographical error and amendment of which cannot be tested on the ground of due diligence, that soon after noticing the typographical mistake in the plaint schedule and in the body of the plaint the application was filed and hence the concept of due diligence has no application, that the defendant did not dispute the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint in the written statement, that the only question was about non-mention of boundaries in the agreement, that the Court below erroneously found fault with the Petitioners in not getting the mistake rectified at the earlier stages of the suit while it is the specific case of the Petitioners that the mistake is typographical and it was noticed recently and seeks to allow the revision by setting aside the dismissal order of trial Court. The learned counsel during the course of arguments reiterated the same. Whereas the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that there is nothing to interfere in the order of the lower Court by this Court while sitting in the revision and prayed to dismiss the revision.

4. Now, the points for consideration are-

"(i) Whether the impugned order requires interference and if so, with what observations?

(ii) To what relief?"

POINT No. 1:

5. The order VI Rule 17 prior to amendment by Act 46/99 scope was vividly enlightened by several expressions of the Constitutional Courts in saying even at the stage of second appeal also amendment of pleadings can be allowed, provided it does not effect or prejudice the rights of the opposite party, muchless changes the cause of action. However, that liberal approach is curtailed by taking away the right once trial commenced by Amended Act 46/99. It is no doubt with a liberal approach to be required as procedural law is the hand maid and not mistress of justice, there was a further amendment that was proposed and ultimately came into force by amended Act 22/2002 with effect from 01.07.2002 introducing the proviso to permit amendment which could not be sought before commencement of trial despite due diligence. For more clarity, the order VI Rule 17 is required to be reproduced which reads as follows:

"17. Amendment of Ple