S. Chandrashekhar, J.

1. Aggrieved of order dated 14.10.2015 by which application dated 29.8.2014 seeking amendment in the schedule of land appended to the plaint has been rejected, substituted legal heirs of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 have approached this Court. Title Suit No. 57 of 2010 was instituted by Shambhu Manjhi and others. In the suit Nunlal Mahto, Nandlal Mahto and Biswanath Mahto were defendants. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff no. 1 died and in his place his legal heirs were substituted by order dated 5.4.2014. The suit was instituted for a declaration of plaintiffs' right, title and interest over the suit property and a declaration that order dated 17.6.1976 passed in Revenue Misc. Case No. 109 of 1973-74 is void ab initio, collusive and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have pleaded that father of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 and grandfather of plaintiff nos. 3 and 4 namely, Bhuneshwar Manjhi acquired one acre land within plot no. 30 in Settlement Case No. 106 of 1958-59 through order dated 18.4.1964 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar and he came in possession over the suit land. The defendants contested the suit disputing right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule land. Specific case pleaded by the defendants is that northern boundary in the schedule of the plaint is wrong and, in fact, in northern side the plaintiffs do not possesses any land rather the northern side of the suit schedule property is recorded as the road of the village. Similarly, the defendants have disputed the description of boundary on southern side and eastern side also. In the pending suit an application dated 29.8.2014 was filed for amendment in the schedule of land disclosed in the plaint. This application has been dismissed by the trial Judge on the ground that if the boundary in the schedule of land is changed, the suit property itself would be shifted from one place to another place which eventually would change the nature of the suit.

2. Contending that correction of a mistake on account of typographical error or inadvertence, in particular, in corroboration of the pleadings in the plaint would not change the nature of the suit, nor any prejudice would be caused to the other party, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment in "Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahmad and Ors.", reported in (2008)3 SCC 717 : 2008 (2) JLJR (SC) 46 to fortify his contention. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents referring to paragraph no. 6 of the written statement contends that the dispute amongst the parties, in essence, is in respect of boundary of the suit schedule property. The learned counsel has referred to evidence of Nandlal Mahto who was examined as the defendants' witness (paragraph no. 20) to contend that on the southern side of the suit schedule land the petitioners have acquired a part in plot no. 30 and with a view to grab the respondents' land, the plaintiffs-petitioners now intend to incorporate plot no. 30 as southern boundary of the suit schedule property, which cannot be permitted at the belated stage.

3. In "Usha Devi" case on somewhat identical facts amendment in the schedule of land was allowed. In the present case, the defendants have specifically disputed the description of boundary disclosed in the plaint which the plaintiffs through amendment intend to correct. The correction in boundary of the suit schedule property is, in fact, not contrary to pleadings in the plaint. Moreover, while adjudicating an application for amendment, the Court is not required to advert to the merits of the matter rather the test is, whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the other party and, whether it is necessary for adjudicating the real issue in controversy. The description of the suit schedule land and its extant are not changed by the proposed amendment. It is, in fact, necessary for identification of the suit schedule property.

4. In "Sa