( 1 ) THE petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 301 of 1998 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District. The respondent filed the suit for declaration regarding suit irrigation channel and mandatory injunction. He filed an application being i. A. No. 1361 of 2002 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ( cpc ) praying the trial Court to permit him to substitute 1997 in the place of 1987 in the cause of action paragraph.

( 2 ) IT is his case that in the paragraph narrating the cause of action, by mistake, instead of 1997 it was mentioned as 1987 and that it is a typographical mistake and, therefore, he may be permitted to amend the same as 1997 in the relevant paragraph. The petitioner opposed the application contending that when in written statement he has taken a plea to the effect that as the cause of action arose on 5-4-1987, the suit beyond three years is barred by limitation. A suggestion was also made to the respondent during the evidence that the suit channel was closed on 5-4-1997 and that at the time of arguments, the amendment cannot be allowed. He also contended that allowing the amendment would amount to introducing a new fact in the pleadings and it would cause prejudice to him.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge, by order dated 1-11-2002 made in I. A. No. 1361 of 2002, believed the version of the respondent and allowed the amendment as prayed for. In the impugned order, the learned trial Judge observed as under. In view of the finding as mentioned earlier that the year 1987 proposed to be amended as 1997 in cause of action para of the plaint in o. S. No. 301 of 1998 is only due to clerical mistake, this petition shall be allowed permitting the petitioner to amend the year 1987 in cause of action para of the plaint in O. S. No. 301 of 1998. Since this petition is filed at belated stage, petitioner shall be directed to pay Rs. 100/- to the respondent.

( 4 ) SRI P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court committed grave error in allowing the application for amendment and that the said amendment would amount to allowing withdrawal of a crucial admission made by the respondent (plaintiff) in the plaint. He also submits that when the cause of action arose on 5-4-1987, on which date the channel was allegedly closed by the petitioner, the suit would be barred by limitation as the suit for declaration has to be filed within a period of three years. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, who filed a caveat submits that it is always permissible for the Court to correct a clerical mistake and a typographical mistake. He also submits that the petitioner filed a suit in O. S. No. 64 of 1997 against the respondent for grant of permanent injunction restraining him from digging the channel i. e. , suit channel in O. S. No. 301 of 1998. Thereafter, the respondent filed O. S. No. 301 of 1998 on 15-7-1998 against the petitioner for declaration of his right over the suit channel and for mandatory injunction to restore the suit channel to the land of the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is justified. He also submits that a revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for correcting the error of law or mistake committed by the lower Court in arriving at a finding of fact. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

( 5 ) IN the light of the rival submissions, two points would arise for consideration. 1) Whether the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is maintainable? 2) Whether the lower Court committed an error by allowing amendment sought for by the respondent? in Re Point No. 1 revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution Section 115 CPC deals with revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Prior to CPC (Amendment) act, 1999, there was no fetter on the power of the High Court while exercising revisional juri