The amendment sought in the appeal stage should be permitted if it is not prejudicial to the other party and would enable the Court to come to a correct conclusion without causing prejudice to the rights of the other party.

1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner, who was appellant before the lower appellate Court, against the order passed by the lower Court appellate Court in refusing to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint in the appeal stage.

2. The brief facts of the case for the purpose of deciding this revision petition are as follows:- The revision petitioner, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.235 of 2001 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their men from in any way trespassing and interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, against which, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed an appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2006 before the first appellate Court. While the appeal is pending, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.4 of 2007 in the appeal seeking for amendment of the survey number of the suit property as it was found to be a wrong survey number. The lower first appellate Court has, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said I.A.No.4 of 2007, which necessitated the petitioner to file this revision before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. T. Murugamanickam the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.L. Ramesh the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The case of the petitioner, as plaintiff in O.S.No.235 of 2001 seeking for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, was dismissed by the trial Court, against which he had preferred the appeal before the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.7 of 2006 and it is pending. The petitioner had inadvertently and due to the mistake committed by the typist had mentioned the survey number of the property as 536/33 instead of Survey No.536/30. The said mistake could have been understood by the petitioner only at the time of cross-examination and it was confirmed, when he obtained encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar, Attur on 27.09.2005 and therefore, the survey number which was mistakenly mentioned in the schedule of property has to be amended suitably. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioners father had purchased the said property in the year 1932 without referring to any survey number and his father was in possession of the said property and after his life time the petitioner continued the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity with regard to the said property. It is also mentioned that the boundaries of the suit property and the door number were correctly mentioned in the schedule of properties and therefore, mere amendment of the correct survey number will not in any way change the description of the entire property. On the other hand it would perfectly mention the suit property. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the amendment ought to have been allowed by the lower appellate Court even though it was filed in the appeal stage.

.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also insist that by virtue of the amendment of the survey number, it will not bring any new property to the description in the suit property and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity by the lower appellate Court to amend the plaint. He would also submit that it will not prejudice the right of the respondents in any way as it would not warrant any additional written statement from the hands of the respondents. He would also submit that the boundary descriptions in respect of the properties will prevail over the survey number and the measurement, when they are in question. Therefore, when the boundaries of the said properties and the door number have not been changed, the entire description of the property will not be altered due to the substitution of correct survey number sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, he would submit that the dismissal order passed by the lower appellate Court may be interfered