ORDER

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner/defendant No.5 is directed against the order, dated 30.11.2023, allowing I.A.No.117 of 2023 in O.S.No.586 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, filed under Order VI, rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule in the above suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The case of the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking amendment of the plaint schedule, in brief, is as follows:

a. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property. Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and after his death, the plaintiff and other defendants including the 5^th defendant succeeded to the schedule property. The 5^th defendant created D.K. patta in his name and has been contesting the suit. The plaintiff obtained information under the Right to Information Act, and found discrepancy in the extents mentioned in the plaint schedule. Hence, she filed this petition seeking to amend the plaint schedule to avoid future complications. By way of amendment, there is no change in the cause of action. There are no willful latches or default on the part of the plaintiff in drafting the schedule and for better adjudication of the dispute, the plaint schedule is required to be amended and if the amendment is allowed, the defendants are not going to suffer any loss or damage.

b. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 died and respondents No.3 & 4 remained ex parte before the trial Court. The 5^th respondent filed counter with the following averments:

The petitioner, without filing any documents with regard to the suit schedule property, filed the present suit with assumptions and presumptions with regard to plot number, extent and door number. After filing the D.K.T patta before the Court which was issued in the name of this respondent in the year 1976, immediately, the petitioner filed this petition seeking to amend the plaint schedule after ten years of filing the suit when the matter was coming for evidence of the plaintiff. The petitioner did not mention anywhere details regarding the patta number allotted to her father. The schedule shown in the plaint and the amendment sought are quite different. The respondent No.5 has been in possession and enjoyment of the property covered in the D.K.patta which was issued in his name in the year 1976. The petitioner is no way concerned with the property of this respondent. The petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4. For better appreciation, the original schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiff is excerpted herein below:

“Prakasam District, Ongole Sub-Registration, Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits – T.S.No.7 by the side of Door No.37-1-409/76 – 4^th Lane, Bhagyanagar, Ongole, an extent of 14 gadies 19 square feet of site, within the said site, there is asbestos cement sheet and bounded by East : Vacant site of Chunduri Subba Rao etc.

South : House of Kollapothula Veeranjaneyulu West : Road North : Road”

b. The consequential amendment sought for reads as follows:

1. Delete the “Door No.37-1-409/76” and substitute therein with “H.No.117, Street No.H 40 Plot No.121” in line No.3 of plaint schedule.

2. Delete the “14 gadies 19” and substitute therein with “1750” sq. feet in line No.4 of plaint schedule.

3. Add the word “@ Anjaiah” after the name “Veeranjaneyulu” in line No.8 of the plaint schedule.”

5. On merits, the trial Court observed that except inclusion of plot number in the suit schedule, there is no change in the property and the claim in the suit is not changed and as such, for proper and effective adjudication of the suit, the proposed amendment is required. It further observed that whether the suit property is liable for division or not can be considered at the time of evaluation of evidence, however, for the inconvenience caused to the other side, the petitioner