Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary to determine the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.

ORDER :

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.

1. The civil revision petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed suit O.S. No.157 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, for permanent injunction, of course, belatedly filed an interlocutory application, vide I.A. No.121 of 2023, for amendment of the boundaries in the schedule, wherein it is noticed that the northern and southern boundaries were wrongly typed, hence filed an application for amendment to note down correct boundaries.

2. The boundaries mentioned in the schedule prior to amendment:

East: Municipal Road

North : common passage

West : common stair case

South : House of Narasinga Rao

3. The amendment petition was dismissed by the learned trial Court Judge on the following grounds:

(1) The failure to mention the correct boundaries in the original plaint for permanent injunction raised doubts about the genuineness of the pleadings and the due diligence of the petitioner;

(2) The amendment would not cause injustice to the other party, and the amendment must be necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties;

(3) No party should be allowed to deprive the other party of the benefits derived from cross-examination of the opposing party's witness by introducing any new pleadings at this stage, relying on the judgment of the common High Court in Ponchareddy Srihari Reddy Vs. Seeribeina Hari Krishna 2014 (4) ALT 104.

4. The said dismissal of I.A. No.121 of 2023, vide order dated 17.04.2023, was assailed in the Civil Revision Petition on the ground that finding of the trial Court, while dismissing the application, is erroneous and it is contrary to the well settled principles of law and the said amendment does not change the nature of the suit and affect the rights of the parties and in fact it is necessary for rights of the parties and the petitioner is seeking only amendment of the boundaries and the trial Court has dismissed the application ignorantly and relied on the following judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in (1)M/s. V.I.P. Emporium and another Vs. M/s. TCI Finance Ltd. 2012(3) ALD 219, and (2) Yeliosetty Sahadeva Vs. Madhavilatha (2017) 4 HLT 620, for the proposition that any mistake, which is found to be clerical in nature, should be allowed to be rectified by exercising inherent power vested in the court for sub-serving the cause of justice and the amendment sought to rectify the mistake occurred in describing the boundaries of the property in the plaint schedule can be allowed treating the mistake as clerical mistake.

5. Repelling the contentions raised by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants in the suit would submit that documents filed, which are marked as exhibits by the petitioner, disclose that the boundaries mentioned therein and the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are one and the same and the present application for amendment was filed after lapse of 7½ years from the date of filing of suit and he would contend that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment Basavaraj and Indira and others 2024(2) ALT 33 (SC), no application for amendment is maintainable after the trial commences and the present the trial has commenced and the petitioner-plaintiff was examined-in-chief and also argued that amendment be rejected, if the petitioner seeks to introduce totally different new and inconsistent case or it changes the fundamental character of the suit, hence prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Based on the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, it is imperative to read the provision of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which reads as follows:

"17. Amendment of pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his