1. This revision is preferred by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in I.A.No.497 of 2015 moved in O.S.No.305 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are the plaintiffs in the suit have moved I.A.No.497 of 2015 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint by mentioning land in survey No.172 (Ac.6-10 gts), 174 (Ac.3-20 gts) situate at Mohammed Nagar Village and survey No.505 (RU) (Ac.3-00 gts) and survey No.507/EE (Ac..3-10 gts) situate at Kandukur Village instead of lands in survey Nos.172, 174, 505/RU and 507/NA situate at Mohammed Nagar Village. That application was allowed. Hence, the present revision.

3. O.S.No.305 of 2005 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.03.2002 by directing the defendants to execute and register the sale deed conveying the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs and to deliver possession of the same and in default the Court may perform the said acts. The suit schedule property has been described as all that land admeasuring Ac.16.00 guntas covered by survey Nos.172, 174, 505/RU and 507/NA of Mohammed Nagar Village, Kandukuru Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As per the averments of the plaint, the 1st defendant who is the exclusive owner of certain parcels of immovable property, comprising of land admeasuring Ac.10-20 guntas out of survey Nos.172, 174, 505/RU and 507/NA by virtue of patta Nos.1, 601 and 523 and the 2nd defendant, who is none other than the wife of the 1st defendant in the suit, is the exclusive owner of land admeasuring Ac.5-20 guntas in survey No.507/NA and 172 by virtue of patta Nos.210 and 1011 issued by MRO, Kandukuru Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, have jointly offered to sell the said total extent of Ac.16.00 guntas for a sale consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- and accordingly, an agreement of sale was executed on 22.03.2002 by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that a sum of Rs.5,11,000/- has been paid towards part of the sale consideration. But, however, on the ground that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not performing their part of the contract, the suit was instituted for specific performance. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.3 and 4 to the said suit. They asserted that they have purchased the entire land of Ac.16.00 guntas from defendant Nos.1 and 2, no doubt subsequent to 22.03.2002. In their written statement, they have raised an objection with regard to the description of the plaint schedule property apart from raising various other contentions about the merits of the matter. In Para 2 of the written statement filed by them they have clearly stated that lands in survey No.505 and 507 are not situated in Mohammed Nagar Village and they are in fact situate in Kandukuru Village and therefore, the description of plaint schedule property as if the entire land was lying in Mohammed Nagar Village is wrong. This written statement appears to have been filed somewhere in April 2006. In spite of the same, no steps have been taken by the plaintiffs to get the suit schedule property amended accordingly.

4. It is now contended by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that on behalf of the plaintiffs, 4 witnesses have been examined and on the side of the defendants, 2 witnesses were examined already and one of them is examined on behalf of defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. At that stage, the present interlocutory application No.497 of 2015 is filed for amending the suit schedule. That application is allowed erroneously by the learned trial Court. It is a belated application and hence, it ought to have been dismissed.

5. It is contended by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been amended suitably and it was reintroduced by the amending Act No.22/2002, which was brought into force with effect from 01.07.2002. while reintroducing Rule 17,