IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2163 of 2009 Between: Jakkula Sarojini … Petitioner And: Mattapalli Satya Venkata Seethamahalakshmi & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2163 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order in IA No.2004 of 2006 in OS No.28 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint and schedule attached thereto, to the extent of correcting survey number as ‘Sy.No.4 & 5/1’ instead of ‘425/1’, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 11.07.1984. After trial, the suit was dismissed on 16.01.1991. The petitioner preferred appeal in AS No.27 of 1991 on the file of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the said appeal was allowed on 04.11.1996 setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and directing the respondents/ defendants to execute the sale deed. In the schedule appended to the decree, survey numbers are mentioned as ‘425/1’ instead of ‘4 & 5/1’. 4. It is not disputed that in the suit agreement of sale, the survey number of the subject land is mentioned as ‘Sy.No.4 & 5/1’ and there is no dispute regarding identity of the land also. It is also not disputed that in the plaint schedule, survey number is mentioned as ‘425/1’. The petitioner’s contention is that the icon representing the word ‘&’ noted in between 4 & 5 in the document was mistakenly noted as ‘2’ instead of ‘&’ and accordingly, the survey number was noted as ‘425/1’ instead of ‘4 & 5/1’. 5. The petitioner filed IA No.2004 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint and the plaint schedule so as to correct the survey numbers as ‘4 & 5/1’ instead of ‘425/1’. The said application was filed before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial Court. It was only in the appeal in AS No.27 of 1991, the suit came to be decreed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the present application does not lie before the trial Court, as the trial Court cannot effect correction in the decree passed by the appellate Court. He further submitted that the amendment of the decree is not prayed for in the present application and it cannot be considered as a consequential amendment to the amendment of the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file fresh applications for amendment of the plaint and decree before the appellate Court, which disposed of AS No.27 of 1991. 7. In view of the said representation, it is considered not necessary to go into the merits of the matter in the present proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty to file fresh applications before the competent Court and on such applications being made, the same may be disposed of by the concerned Court on their own merits, without in any way being influenced by the findings in the impugned order or observations made hereinabove. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly, with a liberty as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.04.2011 Note: Issue CC in two days (BO) bss