ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful respondent/defendant, is directed against the orders dated 31.01.2019, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, passed in IA.No.1941 of 2018 in OS.No.46 of 2008 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for brevity) requesting to permit her to amend the plaint schedule survey number as S.No.306/2 instead of S.No.396/2 and consequential correction in the survey number in the records.

2. Heard Mr. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Mr. V. Nithesh, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant.

3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the request for amendment, in brief, is that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 04.02.2004, at the stage of arguments, it was noticed that there was a typographical mistake in the suit schedule survey number by mentioning as ‘S.No.396/2’, instead of ‘S.No.306/2.’ as tick mark ‘ ‘ which is a part of the letter ‘Pa’ in vernacular language touched ‘0’ in the survey number ‘306’ making it appear as ‘396’. The defendant did not raise any objection to the survey number in his reply notice or in the written statement. Further, the proposed amendment does not change the suit schedule property or nature of the suit and no prejudice will be caused to the case of the defendant by allowing the proposed amendment, rather it is just to decide the suit claims.

(b) The defendant filed counter denying the averment that due to typographical mistake, the suit survey number was typed as 396/2 in the plaint schedule and in evidence and that no objection was raised or that no prejudice is there to the defendant. In the cross-examination of plaintiff, when specifically questioned, PW1 answered that the survey number of the plaint schedule property is ‘S.No.396/2’ but not ‘306/2’. Therefore, the present petition seeking amendment is against the pleadings and evidence. Hence, the present petition has no merit and is not maintainable.

4. On contest, the trial Court allowed the petition of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is before this Court.

5. The defendant seriously argued that since the proposed amendment is sought at a belated stage of arguments, it is to be shown that in spite of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff, the amendment could not be sought at the earliest, but the record shows that the plaintiff failed to take such a pleading even immediately after specifically bringing it to her notice in the cross-examination of PW1. It is further contended that since the beginning from issuing notice till the time of leading evidence, the case of the plaintiff is that the property is in Sy.No.396/2. It is further contended that the proposed amendment is not just a change of one digit, but would also change the nature of the property as the identity of the property would be changed, and thereby, the whole cause of action as well as the nature of the suit would materially be changed. The defendant further submitted that it is false to say that identity of the property has not been disputed, nor it is the specific case of the defendant that the property within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule does not belong to him. It is always disputed that the defendant never sold the suit schedule property as contended by the plaintiff. In addition, delay in filing petition would go to the root of the matter to bring the case out of limitation.

6. On the other hand, the plaintiff contended that the mistake is genuine and the same mistake continued from the beginning till the amendment is sought because it appears to be so, for a naked eye looking at the agreement, but, the agreement was made in pursuance of the document of title which contains the correct survey number