IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 8 6 6 of 2009 Between : Paladugu Venkata Muralikrishna Prasad & 13-Ors. ` … Revision Petitioners- Appellants V/s. Bathula Lakshmikantha Rao & 6-Ors. … Respondents- Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: M/s. G.Krishna Murthy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri O.Manohar Reddy for R4 Sri Polluri Prabhakar Rao for R1 & R2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 8 6 6 OF 2009 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 12-8-2008 passed in I.A.No. 1290 of 2004 in AS.No. 82 of 1996 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, Guntur district, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order-VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the plaint schedule by deleting D.No. 287/A and to substitute the same with D.No. 287/2, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. Heard both sides. At the request of both sides, the main Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. During the course of hearing, it has been pointed out that the suit is filed for injunction and after dismissal the appeal is filed which is pending. At such point of time, this application is filed seeking for amendment. The lower court after hearing both sides dismissed the same. Hence, this Revision. 4. The schedule property was originally situated in D.No. 287/A land later it was subdivided into 287/B1 and 287/B2 and that the plaint schedule land is covered by 287/B2 as per record and by mistake it was mentioned in the schedule as 287/A and in order to rectify the said mistake, the revision petitioners sought to amend the plaint schedule. 5. After hearing the counsel and on perusing the material available on record, it is felt desirable that the application of this nature should have normally taken up along with the main appeal itself unless and until one can properly explain the necessity for amendment and unless the merits of the case are gone into. 6. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion either on correctness or the nature of amendment as sought, it is felt desirable that the said application to be heard along with the main appeal. Accordingly, the order dated 12-8-2008 passed in I.A.No. 1290 of 2004 in AS.No. 82 of 1996 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, Guntur district, is set aside and the trial court is directed to take up the said application along with the main appeal and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to both the parties. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 27-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 8 6 6 OF 2009 CIRCULATION ENTRY No. 199 Date: 27-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43