ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, in I.A.No.602 of 2017 in O.S.No.371 of 2011 dated 10.10.2017, wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff under Order VI Rule, 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that the petition is filed after commencement of trial to get over admission made by the 1st petitioner in his evidence as PW.1.

2. The 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the respondents and he filed a petition, seeking amendment of plaint, which was dismissed, and thereafter he preferred present revision petition and during pendency of the revision petition, the 1st petitioner died and the petitioners 2 to 6 were added as his legal representatives.

3. The case of the 1st petitioner before the trial Court in brief is that he filed suit for division of suit schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to him on the ground that the suit schedule properties are his ancestral properties. He submits that during life time of his father, he used to enjoy item No.2 of suit schedule lands, which are Government lands and considering the possession and enjoyment of his father, the Government also issued DKT patta long ago, and name of his father also mutated in all the revenue records in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule properties. He submits that Sl.No.1 of item No.2 of suit schedule property is to an extent of Ac.1.49 cents of dry land in S.No.1331/1B, but due to typographical mistake, the survey number is mentioned in the plaint as 1303/2-1B, instead of 1331/1B in the plaint schedule, which he intended to correct by seeking amendment. It is also the contention of the 1st petitioner that he came to know the mistake crept in the description of RS number in the schedule when he obtained certified copy of ROR 1 Namuna and cultivation account copy. He prays to amend the plaint.

4. The respondents have filed counter before the trial Court, denying the allegations made in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that the 1st plaintiff without knowing correct survey number of the lands filed suit, now he wants to change the survey number, which totally alters their defense and amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed after commencement of the trial. They pray to dismiss the petition.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the 1st petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the learned trial Judge, the 1st petitioner preferred the present revision petition stating that the Orders passed by the trial Court is illegal and vitiated by material irregularities. He submits that he has noticed the mistake crept in the survey number when he obtained copy of revenue records. He prays to allow the civil revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. P. Sridhar Reddy. None appeared for respondents, though served with notice.

8. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is :

"Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?"

9. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which reads as under :

“17. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS.

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court c