Amendments to plaint schedules are permissible for correcting arithmetical errors without causing prejudice, especially when supported by prior court liberty.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"a. Set-aside the order Dated 09-08-2018, as per Annexure-A, passed by the 2^nd Addl. Civil Judge & CJM., Mysore in O.S.No.345/1998 allowing the Applications (1). Under Section 152 of C.P.C. to amend the measurement in Item No.3 of the plaint schedule and (2). Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to permit the plaintiffs/petitioners to amend/insert the measurement in the item No.3 of the plaint schedule."

2. Sri.S.M.Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession which came to be decreed. Later, RA.No.394/2010 has filed by the defendant which came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, both plaintiffs and defendant filed RSA.Nos.2280/2018 and 1753/2016 respectively and the same was heard as a connected matter, wherein RSA.No.1753/2016 came to be dismissed and RSA.No.2280/2018 came to be allowed in part on 12.07.2024. It is submitted that during the pendency of the regular second appeals the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in the FDP proceedings seeking to correct the extent in item No.3 of the suit schedule property which came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed WP.No.13559/2016. This Court, vide order dated 06.01.2021 set aside the order of the FDP Court dated 05.01.2016 by granting liberty to the petitioners to file an application after the disposal of the regular second appeals filed by the petitioners and respondent. It is submitted that during the pendency of the regular second appeals the petitioners moved an application in OS.No.345/1998 seeking to correct the extent in item No.3 of the suit schedule property. Under the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the said application directing the petitioners to work out the remedy in the pending FDP proceedings. It is submitted that this Court in the aforesaid writ petition granted liberty to the petitioners to file an application for correction/insertion of the extent in item No.3 of the suit schedule property and the FDP Court is required to consider the same. It is further submitted that he would file necessary application in the pending FDP and let the FDP Court consider such application keeping in mind the observation of this Court in WP.No.13559/2016. It is also submitted that the insertion or the amendment sought is only an arithmetical error which would not cause any prejudice or injustice to the other side and none of the parties have opposed the said application. Hence, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

3. Per contra, Sri.Krishnamoorthy, D., learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that if the petitioners intend to file an application in the pending FDP it is open for him to do so as the present petition would not survive for consideration in view of the specific liberty sought by the petitioner. Hence, he seeks to pass appropriate orders.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

5. The material on record indicates that the petitioners filed OS.No.345/1998 seeking relief of partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be decreed on 15.09.2009. Being aggrieved, the defendant filed RA.No.394/2010 which came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs as well as the defendant filed RSA.Nos.1753/2016 and 2280/2018 which came to be disposed of by this Court on 12.07.2024. Interregnum, the petitioners filed an application in IA.No.7 under Order VI Rul