Sri. P. Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri A.Prabhakar Rao and learned counsel for respondents Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. Plaintiffs instituted suit in O.S. No. 511 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal praying to grant permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is agricultural land to an extent of 0-30 guntas in Survey No. 200/E, Gadepalli village, Sangem mandal, Warangal district. The schedule appended to the suit describes the boundaries of the property as under:

East : Land of Kothapalli Janakiramulu

West : Land of Nanjala Kumaraswamy

North : Land of Unkanti Ramarao

South : Main road leading from Warangal to Nekkonda

4. Plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1461 of 2008 praying to amend the relief sought in the suit and sought for declaration that plaintiffs are owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and to grant decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference. The said I.A. was allowed by order dated 10.9.2009. Plaintiffs filed I A No. 1878 of 2015 praying to amend the schedule to the plaint with reference to boundaries of the property. In the amended schedule plaintiffs describe the boundaries of the suit schedule property as under:

East : Land of Kothapalli Janakiramulu

West : 20 feet wide way leading to Nallakunta village

and thereafter Land of Nanjala Kumaraswamy.

North : Land of Onkanti Ramarao

South : Remaining land admeasuring Ac.0.31 guntas in Sy.No. 200/E belongs to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and thereafter main road leading from Warangal to Nekkonda.

5. In other words, plaintiffs intend to change the description of the boundaries of the suit schedule property on the western side and on the southern side. By the time this application is filed, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exhibits A1 to A11 and he was also partly cross examined by defendants 2 and 3. On elaborate consideration of rival contentions, the trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not diligent in prosecuting their litigation, that if the petition is allowed, it would affect the defense of defendants. The trial Court also noted that the suit was one of the targeted cases and require early disposal and granting of relief as prayed would only delay the disposal of the suit.

6.1 Learned counsel for plaintiffs would submit that the provision in Order 6, Rule 17 has to be liberally construed, amendment of the plaint has to be ordered in normal course as it would only avoid multiplicity of litigation and is intended to remove the gaps occurred or error in description of property or defects noted in the plaint and object of the Court should be only to ensure that justice is rendered on true and correct facts.

6.2. The claim of the plaintiffs is that this portion of the property is vested in the plaintiffs and the remaining portion of the property vested in the defendants. Sri Kalahasti Venkateshwarlu and Sri Kalahasti Hanumaiah are brothers. Plaintiffs are sons of Sri Kalahasti Venkateshwarlu. Defendant no.2 is son of Sri K Hanumaiah and defendant no.3 is daughter in law of Sri K Hanumaiah and wife of defendant no.2. The suit property is part of joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3. During the life time of father of plaintiffs, father of 2nd defendant partitioned the entire property and during the said partition, the suit property fell to the share of plaintiff's father. Thus, after the death of plaintiffs' father, as legal heirs they succeeded to the said property. While so, illegally defendants 2 and 3 are claiming the entire extent of Ac.1.21 guntas as belonging to them. This being the substantive grievance in the suit and as there is no dispute regarding the total extent of land in Survey No. 200/E, merely because there is wrong description of the boundaries and merely because plaintiffs are now praying to amend the boundaries would not change the cause in the suit