ORDER :

Defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order 28.11.2022 in I.A.No.893 of 2022 in O.S.No.1630 of 2022 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.1630 of 2022 against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction.

3. In the plaint, it was contended that plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property in R.S.No.363/1, plot No.140 of old Assessment No.1986 (old door No.8-128 D), admeasuring 400 square yards. Suit schedule property was purchased by father of the plaintiff, K. Satyanaraya from Bandi Kondaiah under registered document dated 16.09.1982. Father of the plaintiff gifted the same to the plaintiff under document, dated 28.07.2012. Plaintiff is residing in Nuzveed and defendant taking advantage of absence of the plaintiff tried to trespass into the property and the said attempt was resisted. Hence, suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction.

4. Plaint schedule property is described as follows:

“The following schedule is situated in Vijayawada East, Gundadala District Registrar, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Survey No.363/1, Plot No.140, Old Assessment No.1986, D.No.48-16-38, to an extent of 400-00 sq. yards as such the present extent of the schedule property as follows:

East : Boundary of the Deccan Society Property

South : Road

West : Boundary of Kalagar Vitala Kumari Property

North : Boundary of plot No.137 property of Parvathaneni Kanyakumari”

5. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.658 of 2022 for grant of ad-interim injunction. Defendant filed caveat and hence, Court ordered notice.

6. Defendant filed written statement and counter in I.A.No.658 of 2022.

7. As the matter stood thus, plaintiff filed I.A.No.893 of 2022 to amend suit schedule property i.e. Door No.8-128-D in the place of door No.48-16-38 in line three of the plaint schedule property.

8. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, it was contended that a mistake was occasioned in the plaint regarding the schedule wherein door number is shown as 48-16-38. In the gift deed as well as encumbrance certificate, it was mentioned that nearest door number is 48-16-38. While typing schedule property annexed to the plaint, it was wrongly typed as 48-16-38. The said mistake occurred due to over sight and it was not deliberate. Door number of suit schedule property is clearly mentioned in document No.3905/2012. Hence, the application is filed seeking amendment.

9. Defendant filed counter affidavit and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended that plaintiff is professional land grabber and instrumental in creating forged and fabricated documents, which were filed along with the suit. In the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.658 of 2022, defendant pleaded that plaintiff set up a false case. D.No.8-128D or 48-16-38 is bogus. During the course of hearing I.A.No.658 of 2022, since defendant disputed identity of the suit schedule property, present application is filed seeking amendment. Identity of the suit schedule property is also in dispute and it goes to the root of the suit. As such, amendment cannot be ordered. Eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the application.

10. Trial Court by order dated 28.11.2022, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

11. Heard Sri MRK Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhanu Prakash, representing Ms. Ganta Sridevi, learned counsel for the respondent.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proposed amendment is causing prejudice to the defendant. Plaintiff pleaded door number of the suit schedule property as 48-16-38. He submits that by filing written statement in the suit and counter in interlocutory application, defendant denied existence of door No.48-16-38 or 8-128D and further pleaded bogus. He submits that in the third party affidavits also door number was mentioned as 48-16-38. He further submits that during the cour