ORDER:

The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.55 of 2018 against the petitioner herein, before the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, admeasuring Ac.14.50 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.208/A of P.V. Puram, Satyavedu Mandal, Tirupathi Division, Chittoor District. The respondent set out the boundaries of the land in the schedule attached to the plaint in the following manner:

East : Land of Raghava Reddy West : Road North : Land of V. Mastan.

South : Land of D. Kodandapani Raju

2. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement, in which the petitioner took a plea that the original document, on the basis of which, the respondent was claiming title, was a fabricated document and in any event, the said document did not set out any boundaries of the suit schedule property while the respondent was trying to set out such boundaries and the same was not permissible. The petitioner also took various other pleas which are not germane to the present case.

3. The respondent, after trial had commenced and a witness had been examined in chief, had filed I.A.No.816 of 2023 for amending the Northern and Southern boundaries of the plaint schedule. It was the case of the respondent that the Northern boundary should have been the land of D. Kodandapani Raju and the Southern boundary should be land of V. Masthan. However, the plaint reflected the Northern boundary as the land of V. Masthan and the Sourthern boundary as the land of D. Kodandapani Raju. The said mistake is said to have occurred on account of inadvertence and the said mistake was realized when the learned counsel for the respondent was going through the entire plaint for the purpose of producing necessary evidence before the Court. It was contended that the said amendment would not in any manner effect the merits of the case or cause prejudice to the defense raised by the petitioner and the same could be allowed.

4. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit in which the petitioner contended that the settlement deed dated 07.03.2018, through which the respondent was claiming her right and title, did not contain any boundaries despite which the respondent had shown wrong and invented boundaries and as such the said amendment should not be allowed. The petitioner also took the ground that the correct boundaries had been shown by him in his written statement filed on 10.07.2019 and as such the respondent cannot seek to amend the boundaries now. The petitioner also took the defense that amendment of a suit after commencement of the trial and after the petitioner had been partly cross-examined, is not permissible.

5. The trial Court allowed the application by order dated

24.11.2023, against which the present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant.

6. Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the amendment of plaint, after commencement of trial is expressly barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., which reads as follows:

“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”.

7. Sri G.R. Sudhakar, learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had already given correct boundaries and as such the respondent cannot be permitted to change boundaries at this belated stage and any such change would affect the rights of the petitioner. He would also argue that the requirements of the proviso, for permitting any amendment, have also not been made out by the respondent.

8. Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the mistake is an inadvertent typographical error and the same could not be dete