In property disputes, boundaries prevail over survey numbers. Amendments to correct typographical errors in survey numbers under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be allowed to determine the real controversy, provided the identity of the land is unchanged and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction, pending suit after long lapse of time filed I.A. No. 339 of 2025 under order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the Survey number in the plaint schedule the same was dismissed by the trial Judge. Challenging the order dated 05.08.2025 in I.A. No. 339 of 2025 in O.S. No. 56 of 2012, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The reasons assigned in the affidavit for filing of amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 7 is that old survey number was mistakenly drafted and typed as 221 instead of 222B (222/2) is relevant to the plaint schedule property which is correlates to the present survey number 217/6 and the Tahsildar issued correlation certificate in R.C.No. 173/2025/SA/Dt. 29.04.2025 which reveals the old survey number 222/2 of Gilman Record correlated to the plaint schedule survey number 217/6.

3. The learned trial Court Judge has dismissed the I.A. No. 339 of 2025 with an observation of that the petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled for the proposed amendment as prayed in the petition extracting the contention raised by petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge has passed one line order without assigning any reasons while dismissing the application filed for amendment. On this ground alone the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.

4. The said order dated 05.08.2025 in I.A. No. 339 of 2025 was assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the trial Court ought not to have been dismissed the application as it is only typographical and the second ground is that Order VI Rule 17 outlines that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend the pleadings to determine the real question in controversy between the parties only stipulation is that no amendment should be allowed after commencement of trial if the party is failed to exercise due diligence or unless due diligence is proven. Lacklustre grounds have been raised in the memorandum of grounds.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant has stated that the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to act diligently in amending the survey number at relevant point of time despite having been raised this as defence in the written statement and the present application is filed with malafide intent and that does not appear to have been made in good faith and that by his blunder it causes injury to his respondent/defendant. The petitioners/plaintiffs should have been filed the application seeking for amendment of the schedule of property at least immediately after the filing of the written statement. However in the written statement admits that the boundaries are one and the same for the unamended Surrey number and the proposed survey number. Counsel further argued that when the plaintiff had deposed evidence and the same cannot be allowed to amend the schedule of property to get over the admissions made by her.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to act diligently in amending the survey number at the appropriate time, despite having raised this defense in the written statement. Furthermore, the present application is filed with mala fide intent.

7. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, it is relevant to note that the boundaries and extent of the suit property has not been denied by the respon