THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2567 OF 2008 DATED:23-09- 2010. Between 1.Bukya Ankus and others … Petitioners And National Institute of Technology (Deemed University) Warangal. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2567 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 29-01-2008, in I.A.No.1499 of 2007 in A.S.No.128 of 2006, on the file of the District Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 17 CPC to amend the suit schedule by including boundaries to the suit schedule property, was dismissed. 2. The suit is of the year 1981. The judgment was delivered in the year 2006. The schedule of the property has not been mentioned in the plaint. A commissioner was appointed in the trial Court. Thereafter also, the petitioners have not filed any petition to amend the plaint with regard to the schedule of the property. For the first time, they came up with an application on 18-06-2007 to amend the plaint. The petition appears to have been filed basing on some observations of the trial Court that proper identification of the suit schedule property was not given by the plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on a decision reported in RAMCHANDRA SAKHARAM MAHAJAN V DAMODAR TRIMBAK TANKSALE (DEAD) AND OTHERS [1], wherein it was held thus: “WE find that the trial Court and the appellate Court were not justified in refusing the amendment of the plaint sought for by the plaintiff. No doubt there had been delay in seeking amendment but that delay could have been compensated by awarding costs to the contesting defendants 1 to 9. Therefore, we are satisfied that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff ought to have been allowed. We are inclined to allow the amendment sought for, since it would enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the real dispute between the parties and would enable it to render a decision more satisfactorily to its conscience. We, therefore, allow the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff at a belated stage. The amendment will be carried out by the plaintiff in the trial court within three months from this date as per the practice followed in the trial Court. Obviously defendants 1 to 9 would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint. They will be entitled to file an additional written statement within a period of four months from the date of this judgment. “ The above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. The present petition was filed after lapse of 25 years seeking amendment of the schedule. In such circumstances, the appellate Court rightly exercised its discretion in not allowing the petition. Therefore, the order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:23-09- 2010 Hsd [1] (2007) 6 SCC 737