ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Chennur, dated 02.12.2020, dismissing I.A.No.54 of 2020 in O.S.No.49 of 2017 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking to amend the plaint.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under :

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men and servants from entering and interfering with his possession over the suit land admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.418/10 situated at Dubbapally Shivar, R/M Jaipur, Mancherial District. When the suit was posted for further evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, he filed I.A.No.54 of 2020 seeking amendment of the plaint, stating that in the plaint the survey number was mistakenly mentioned as Sy.No.418/10 instead of Sy.No.418/6 and that the same was caused due to clerical mistake and as such amendment of survey number in the plaint, schedule of property and Form No.8 is necessary, for proper adjudication of the matter and further stated that if the said amendment is permitted, no prejudice would be caused to the other side since it will not change the nature of the suit.

4. Respondents/defendants filed counter denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated that the present petition was filed after commencement of trial that too at the stage of further evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff. Since the present petition is filed after cross-examination of P.W.1, in which P.W.1 was questioned regarding the survey number, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5. After considering the aforesaid rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the amendment that is sought to be made is a very innocuous one and that the nature of the suit will not get altered or changed. He further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants if the survey number is amended.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. no amendment can be permitted by the Court after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. He further submits that the petitioner/plaintiff does not know the survey number where his land is situated and that the present petition is filed only to cover his mistakes and if the amendment is allowed, the respondents/defendants will be put to irreparable loss and that the said application was rightly dismissed by the trial Court.

8. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to refer to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., 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 comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

9. Admittedly, the suit was coming up for further evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, but under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to amend his pleadings and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purposes of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

10. While ordering an amendment, the Court has to see whether such amendment is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; whe