THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order, dated 23.03.2017 passed in I.A.No.285 of 2016 in O.S.No.26 of 2013 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, (for short ‘the impugned order’).

2. Vide the impugned order, the trial court after going into the merits of the case and considering the entire oral and documentary evidence placed by the petitioners/plaintiffs has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the C.P.C.), seeking permission of the court to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the boundaries of the suit schedule property. 3. The suit i.e., O.S.No.26 of 2013 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants contending that the petitioners and the brother of the petitioner had purchased the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.0-10 guntas in Sy.No.788 and also residential plot admeasuring 300 square yards under registered sale deed bearing No.2287 of 1981, dated 24.07.1981, from its owners which is Ex-A1.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the contents of the sale deed were in Urdu language and as such at the time of filing of suit, boundaries as prescribed for 300 square yards of land are mentioned as boundaries for suit schedule property for Ac.0-10 guntas of land in Sy.No.788. It is further contended that the said mistake of mentioning the wrong boundaries in the plaint was brought to their notice during the course of cross examination of PW-1 and contended that the petitioners/plaintiffs have made the present application i.e., I.A.No.285 of 2016 seeking amendment of the said boundaries of the schedule property, stating that if the said amendment is not permitted, it will cause prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs and prayed to allow the petition.

5. Respondents/defendants filed their counter contending that the petitioners/plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence and made the present application at the belated stage and seeking the amendment of the plaint. It is further contended that the amendment of the boundaries would change the nature of the suit and the same will cause great prejudice to the respondents/defendants, as it is filed at a belated stage and the matter is posted for trial. It is also contended that no amendment can be permitted once trial is commenced unless the petitioners/plaintiffs makes out a case that inspite of their due diligence, the same cannot be got corrected earlier prior to the trial.

6. After hearing both the counsel, the learned trial court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs contending that though the petitioners/plaintiffs was very well aware of the boundaries of the land as mentioned in Ex-A1 and boundaries forming part of the property and at the stage of PW-1 cross examination the petitioners/plaintiffs coming up with this application is at the belated stage and the petitioners/plaintiffs have failed to show that inspite of due diligence, they could not amend the boundaries and hence dismissed the petition.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on the ground that the learned trial court ought to have consider that there are two properties covered under Ex.A1 and the boundaries for the open plot was only mentioned and the amendment petition can also be allowed even after completing the trial where there is sufficient reason to show that the amendment sought is for just decision of the case.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contended that no prejudice would cause to the respondents/defendants if the said amendment is permitted and prayed to allow this revision petition by setting aside the impugned order.

9. Notices