THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1390 of 2021

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - respondent -

appellant aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.707 of 2016 in A.S.No.161 of 2012 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. The revision petitioner is the appellant - defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2002. During the pendency of this revision, the revision petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 6.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that O.S.No.3 of 2002 was filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.06.1995 and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule lands. The trial court after full-fledged trial, decreed the suit by its judgment dated 16.04.2012. Against the judgment and decree, the petitioner herein preferred appeal vide A.S.No.161 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property. The said petition was allowed by the lower Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - respondent - appellant preferred this revision.

4. Heard Sri Avancha H.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant submitted that under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, an amendment need to be made at pretrial stage, but not post trial. The petition was filed by the respondent - plaintiff at a belated stage after a lapse of 14 years. The respondent - plaintiff had given common boundaries for two separate survey numbers. The appeal was filed in the year 2012. But the respondent had not taken any steps immediately for filing such application in 2012 itself, which would show that she was negligent. The conduct of the parties would need to be taken into consideration while deciding such applications and prayed to set aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court in I.A.No.707 of 2016 in A.S.No.161 of 2012 dated 26.07.2021 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff on the other hand contended that while preparing the arguments in the appeal, it was noticed that at the time of filing of the suit, a typographical mistake has been occurred in respect of the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property. The same was mentioned as Bandi Yellaiah and others instead of Bandi Yettaiah and others. The name of Bandi Yettaiah was also mentioned in the notice given to the defendant on 27.06.2001. No prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner herein by allowing the send amendment. The lower Appellate Court had not committed any error in passing the said order and prayed to dismiss the revision.

7. Perused the record.

8. As the record would disclose that the suit was filed showing the schedule of property as agricultural land bearing ghut Survey No.319 to an extent of Ac.3-00 acres or its sub-survey numbers 319/a, 319/e, 319/ee, 319/u, 319/uu and 319/ru, total to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas and ghut survey No.335 to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas or its sub-survey number 335/e total measuring Ac.5-00 guntas situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District, bounded by:

North: Land of Budidi Venkat Reddy.

South: Land of Bandi Ramulu.

East: Land of Bandi Yellaiah and others. West: Land of B.Sathyanarayana Reddy.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property was shown as land of Ban