ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 12.03.2020 dismissing the petition in I.A. No. 71 of 2020 in O.S. No. 36 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Punganur filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to permit them to amend the plaint in the description of the boundaries of the property shown in the schedule of the plaint as follows:

Chittor District - Punganur Mandal - Melupatla village - Survey No. 132/7 wet land Ac. 0-78 cents Palki Ac. 0-25 cents.

East: Tamarind Tree belongs to Ramaswamy Temple and land of others.

West: Land of 1st plaintiff.

North: Land of 1st plaintiff.

South: Road.

2. The petitioners contended that the boundaries described in their registered sale deed dated 19-03-1971 were erroneously described in the plaint due to mistake in understanding the boundaries noted in the sale deed, because they were described in a manner different from the ordinary manner.

3. The petition was opposed by the defendants by filing counter stating that the petition was filed belatedly after 4 years of filing the suit with ulterior motives to protract the suit proceedings and the proposed amendment has effect of defeating the defence set up by the defendants and the cause of action for the suit would also change.

4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition, holding that if the petition is allowed, it will change the entire nature of the suit and that the amendment was sought after lapse of nearly four years after filing the suit at a belated stage when the Court commenced the trial, without assigning any reasons for the delay. The trial Court further recorded that similar petition in I.A. No. 564 of 2016 was earlier filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 01.11.2019, but the same was not pressed on 03-02-2020, after filing of the counter by the respondents, for the reasons best known to the petitioners and on the same day the present petition was filed. The trial Court held that the petition is devoid of merits.

5. Having aggrieved by the order, the revision petition is filed stating that the amendments were sought due to typographical error and misinterpretation of the document while preparing the plaint and that the amendments are very much essential for proper appreciation of the evidence and further that the trial Court ought to have observed that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the amendments are allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the amendments must be ordinarily allowed, if no prejudice is caused to the respondents and that for the purpose of correcting the description of the plaint schedule property which occurred due to misdescription of the property, a fair opportunity be given to adjudicate the matter on merits. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others vs. K.K. Modi and Others, 2006 (3) ALD 61 (SC) and also the decision of this High Court in Allam Naga Raju and Others vs. Katta Jagan Mohan Reddy and Others, C.R.P. No. 2508 of 2013 dated 10.04.2014.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition as the petitioners failed to disclose that the amendments could not have been taken earlier inspite of exercise of due diligence and more over the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit and the cause of action. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Nandyala Sridevi vs. Gottimukkala Satyanarana Raju, C.R.P. No. 6995 of 2018 dated 30.11.2018. wherein there is an elaborate discussion of several decisions dealing with the provision in Order VI Rule 17 CPC and finally appreciated the matter in that case as to whether due diligence has been made out by the petitioner or not.

8. For better appreciation of the arguments, Provision under Order VI Rule 17 CPC