IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH (25TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1358 of 2011 Between: Nagireddi Apparao & 2 others … Petitioners And: Medisetti Atcheyyamma …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRPNo.1358 of 2011 ORDER This revision is directed against the order dated 23.02.2011 in IA No.712 of 2010 in OS No.411 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, wherein the said application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed suit OS No.411 of 2006 against the petitioners for declaration of title over the suit property marked in the plaint plan B-B2 and E-E2 and for consequential relief of delivery of vacant possession of the portion marked B-B1 and EE1 after removing the structures. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit commenced and the plaintiff was examined as PW.1. When the matter was coming up for further evidence, plaintiff filed the present application IA No.712 of 2010 seeking amendment of the plaint schedule as follows: “I. To delete “admeasuring 107 square yards” in 6th line of schedule; II. To delete ‘the site of Nagireddi Durgi Naidu’ in 11th line of schedule, and to replace in its place ‘the house in Plot no.108 in which the plaintiff is living’. III. To delete ‘East to West: 24 feet’ in 13th line of schedule, and to replace in its place East to West: 3’4”. 4. According to the plaintiff, there has been some mis- description in the schedule due to oversight on the part of the previous counsel and it has to be corrected in the interest of justice. She further pleaded in the affidavit that in the body of the plaint, suit property has been described correctly, but only in the schedule certain discrepancies have crept in and hence, the proposed amendment. The petitioners/defendants filed counter opposing the amendment, mainly on the ground of delay and also contending that it amounts to filling up latches in the evidence of PW.1. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by impugned order allowed the application observing that by virtue of proposed amendment of the schedule nature of the suit is not changed and it does not affect or prejudice the rights of any one. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 5. The suit is one for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The burden squarely lies on the plaintiff to establish her claim of ownership over the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property has been properly and correctly described in the body of the plaint, but only certain discrepancies have crept in the schedule due to oversight on the part of her earlier counsel. The trial of the suit is only at the threshold stage. The amendment of the schedule does not bring about any change in the nature or character of the suit nor alter cause of action. When it is noticed that there are certain discrepancies in the description of the property in the schedule of the plaint, it is only just and proper that an opportunity is to be afforded to the plaintiff to correctly describe the property so that there can be an effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties on the real controversy in the subject matter, as otherwise it may result in futile exercise. For the lapse if any on the part of the counsel in drafting the plaint or schedule, the party cannot be penalized. As the suit is one for declaration of title and for recovery of possession regarding immovable property, and thereby involves valuable rights of the parties in the disputed property, it is only just and proper that the proposed amendment in the schedule is to be permitted in the interest of justice. It is open to the petitioners/defendants to file additional written statement and also to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination on the said aspect. The impugned order permitting the amendment of the schedule does not therefore call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 25.08.2011 bss