IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5109 of 2008 Between: Smt.Leela Devi ..... PETITIONER AND J.Narasimha and others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 05.08.2008, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R.Nagar, Hyderabad in I.A.No.842 of 2008 in O.S.No.2545 of 2007. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2545 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, against the respondents seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., Plot No.6, admeasuring 132 sq.yards, situated in Survey No.138 of Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and also obtained ad interim injunction in I.A.No.2320 of 2007. While so, he filed the present application i.e., I.A.No.842 of 2008, under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC with a prayer to permit him to amend the plaint as well as the petition in I.A.No.2320 of 2007 by correcting the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property as Plot No.11 instead of Plot No.22 stating that the said mistake has crept in by oversight and based on the typographical mistake in the original sale deed. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that in fact the plan attached to the original sale deeds as well as title deeds of the predecessors in title and the plan filed by respondents 1 and 2 clearly indicate that the eastern boundary of the suit schedule property is Plot No.11. The respondents filed counter opposing the application. Through the impugned order, dated 05.08.2008, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at NTR Nagar, Hyderabad dismissed the I.A. Questioning the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. This Court ordered notice to the respondents as early as on 19.12.2008 and also directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice by RPAD. However on 21.08.2009, as it was represented that the notices sent returned unserved, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to cause substituted service by publishing the same in ‘Saakshi’, Telugu Daily, of Ranga Reddy District edition. In spite of publication of notice as directed, when the matter is taken up for consideration on 16.09.2009, none appeared for the respondents and hence, this Court posted the matter to today for hearing by printing the name of the respondents in the cause list. Even today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, none appeared for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Through the impugned order, dated 05.08.2008, the trial Court has dismissed the application for the reasons mentioned in para-8 thereof, which reads as under: “As seen from the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff dated 16.02.2005, under which, the petitioner herein purchased the property disclosing the same boundaries which are shown in the plaint schedule property. In these sale deed, the eastern boundary is shown as Plot No.22, but the sale deed is silent that whether this plot No.6 is in Srinivasa Nagar Colony or in Srinivasa Anand Nagar Colony. Now the plaintiff wants to change the eastern boundary as plot No.11 relying upon the plaint attached to the sale deed, in which the eastern boundary is shown as plot No.11. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is for the vendors to explain which boundary is correct either the boundary mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed or the boundary mentioned in the plan attached to the sale deed. Therefore, it is clear that the identity of the property is in dispute, whereas the suit is filed for simple injunction. Therefore in such circumstances, I feel that it is not proper to allow this application at this stage and the petition is liable for dismissal.” However, a perusal of the material on record, especially the layout (at page-126) and the title deeds of the predecessors in title of the petitioner, clearly indicates that the eastern boundary of the suit schedule property is Plot No.11. Therefore, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has established that the eastern boundary of the suit schedule property is Plot No.11, but not Plot No.22, and the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application merely based on the typographical mistake in the sale deed of the petitioner, without properly appreciating the evidence in right perspective. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:15.10.2009 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB