THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3808 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

20.09.2024 in I.A.No.1029 of 2024 in O.S.No.177 of 2003, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. 2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.1029 of 2024 in O.S.No.177 of 2003, against the respondents under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC and rule 28 of CRP, before the trial Court, for amendment of the plaint along with consequential amendments in O.S.No.177 of 2003. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said Order, they preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners herein mainly contended that petitioners sought for amendment to incorporate the correct boundaries of the suit schedule properties and it is necessary for proper adjudication and determination of the real question of the matter. The nature of correction is clerical mistake, which crept in the plaint and it cannot be refused on the ground of delay, but the trial Court without appreciating the facts properly, dismissed the application. The proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit or pleadings and it is essential for the effective implementation of the decree to be passed in future and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the amendment application is allowed. He also contended that citations filed by the petitioners were not considered by the trial Court. Petitioners have previously filed the similar application vide CFR No.1500 of 2020, dated 17.11.2020 even before filing of the written statement of respondent No.1, but it was misplaced by the Registry and hence they filed I.A.No.1029 of 2024, for amendment of the plaint. They filed the said application only to rectify the typographical mistakes which were crept at the time of filing of the suit. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

4. Initially, petitioners have filed a suit vide O.S.No.177 of 2003, for specific performance of agreement of sale against the respondents on 10.11.2003 and the boundaries of the suit schedule properties for Sy.Nos.314, 315, 309 and 311 admeasuring Acs.3-07 gts, Acs.2-37 gts, Acs.8-07 gts and Acs.9-32 gts respectively, were mentioned in the plaint. Written Statement was filed by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 on 31.08.2023, respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 10.06.2005 and respondents No.3 and 4/defendants No.3 and 4 on 30.07.2007. Further, additional written statements were also filed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 21.12.2007 and by respondents No.3 and 4 on 07.12.2007. As the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte, respondents No.2 to 4 were impleaded. Respondent No.2 is the wife of respondent No.1 and respondents No.3 and 4 are the children of respondent No.1. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, respondents preferred an appeal before this Court vide A.S.No.394 of 2016 and this Court vide Judgment dated 12.07.2022, set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. I.A.No.1844 of 2018 in O.S.No.177 of 2003 was filed for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment and decree dated 09.02.2016, passed in O.S.No.177 of 2003 and it was allowed on 07.12.2019. After remanding the matter for fresh disposal, the present application i.e., I.A.No.1029 of 2024 was filed for rectification of the boundaries on the ground that they obtained Tonch Map and Village Map of Indresham Village and on examining the maps, they noticed that there was an error in reference to the survey number on the west side of the item No.ii of the suit schedule properties. The survey number was shown as 320 instead of 321, as such