B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order and decree in I.A. No. 893 of 2015 in O.S.No.36 of 2010 dated 10.08.2015 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

2. The petitioner herein is the first defendant and the respondents No.1 to 3 herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No. 36 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The suit filed is for partition of plaint A,B,C,D and E schedule properties into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5th share to each of three plaintiffs and similar 1/5th share to the defendants No.2 and 3 representing their father's share. The plaint A, B, C, D and E schedule properties are described vividly.

3. The 1st defendant filed separate written statement and defendants No. 2 to 4 filed separate written statements respectively, where the suit is under contest. The chief affidavit of 1st plaintiff as PW. 1 was filed on 10.2.2015 after serving notice to the defendants and the same was also taken on oath by order of the Court dated 10.02.2015 and exhibited 5 documents viz certified copy of registered partition deed dated 31.10.2007, certified copy of two registered sale deeds of 1973 and 1970 respectively, Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1983 to 2007 and Pahani copies of fasli 1422 for survey Nos. 31/A and 28/B2 of Khajipet Mandal under Meeseva respectively, and PW.1 was cross examined on 04.06.2015.

4. While so, the plaintiffs filed petition in July 2015 under Order 6, Rule 17 read with 151 Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint schedules as follows:

".Recently I was examined as PW.1 in the matter. In fact the present suit is instituted on 07.11.2008 at Kurnool on the file of District Court wherein it was numbered as O.S.No. 51 of 2008. Later on, it was withdrawn on it and transferred to this Hon'ble Court, wherein it was renumbered as O.S.No. 36 of 2010. While preparing the plaint by my previous advocates they disclosed property in (1) A-Schedule property at measuring Ac 0.12 cents by giving door number 3/1290 and disclosing both old and new subdivisions Survey numbers and also disclosed ward number and extent covered by open site and house, but unfortunately the boundary which relates to western side disclosed as the remaining property of B.V. Venkataramana. The remaining boundaries which disclosed in the plaint schedule is intact and available on the ground and the extent correctly disclosed. Mistake the western boundary disclosed as remaining extent as if it is available. Thus there was a mistake crept by mistake, hence it made us to file this application seeking amendment.

4. So far as II-Schedule it is disclosed that an extent of Ac 0.10 cents. In fact the remaining part of the entire property which disclosed in the plaint schedule are intact available on the ground. It is well settled law boundaries will prevail over the extent. Here in the present case on hand the family has got Ac 0.15 cents in plot No.39 but where as it is disclosed as Ac 0.10 cents. In view of it to avoid unnecessary cloud in the matter now permit us to disclose the entire extent of Ac 0.15 cents by deleting Ac 0.10 cents. It will not cause any prejudice to the respondents, because it was already disclosed by boundaries.

5. (IV) D Schedule in fact for D schedule property the plot No.68 and 69 are disclosed in the plaint schedule as well as survey numbers and other important particulars, but whereas it has to be disclosed as Ac 0.09 cents 440 Sq.Yards but it was wrongly noted. But correct boundaries are disclosed in the plaint schedule. It is well known principle of law that if the property is disclosed within the boundaries, the boundaries will prevail over the extent. Hence to avoid inconvenience to both the parties now we request to delete the extent which disclosed in the D schedule and insert in place an extent of Ac 0.09 cents 440 Sq Yards.

6. So far as item number of Schedule wherein an error was crept in the schedule regarding the