THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3811 OF 2009 Dated 16th September, 2009 Between: Veldandi Vasantha …Petitioner And Kanne Mallesham …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri J.Venkateshwara Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Not present The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.751 of 2006, aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2008 passed in I.A.No.467 of 2008 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The suit is filed seeking perpetual injunction against the respondent. In the suit, on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of P.W.1 was filed and the case is posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A. No.467 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by correcting the schedule property boundaries on southern and northern sides. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is categorically stated that due to oversight, the southern boundary of the schedule property is mentioned as remaining land of the plaintiff, but the same is owned by one Smt S.Pushpaleel and northern side of the boundary is mentioned as land of Sri Venkataiah instead of the land of Smt V.Vasantha. The said application was opposed by the respondent stating that there are no grounds to allow the said application and the same is filed to fill up the lacunae. The Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application stating that the petitioner has filed the application only to fill up the lacunae and there are no special reasons to allow the same after commencement of the trial. This Court, by order dated 21.08.2009, issued notice before admission and the counsel for the petitioner was also permitted to take out personal notice on the respondent. In pursuance thereof, the counsel served notice on the respondent and filed proof of acknowledgment of service of notice along with memo dated 08.09.2009. In spite of such service, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent to oppose this Civil Revision Petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Order VI Rule 17 CPC says that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proviso to this Rule stipulates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the instant case, the trial has already been commenced and the suit is coming up for the cross-examination of P.W.1. It is categorically stated by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the application that due to oversight, the boundaries of the schedule property were wrongly mentioned. When all the other boundaries of the schedule property are correctly mentioned, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the petitioner that due to oversight, the northern and southern boundaries were wrongly mentioned. Hence, it can be construed that in spite of due diligence, the petitioner could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. Further it is also to be noted that the suit is coming up for the cross-examination of P.W.1 only. As such, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent, if the amendment, as sought for, is permitted at this stage. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and since the cross-examination of P.W.1 is yet to commence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application for amendment as prayed for. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge is set aside and consequently I.A.No.467 of 2008 in O.S.No.751 of 2006 stands allowed. The petitioner to file amended copy within four (4) weeks from today. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 16th September, 2009 Note: Issue C.C by 22.09.2009 vrn