IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.5908 & 5911 OF 2008 Between: Punnam Komuraiah …Petitioner A n d Miryal Narender Reddy and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5908 & 5911 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.5908 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 27.11.2008 in I.A.No.242 of 2008 in O.S.No.515 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, wherein the said application filed the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.5911 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 27.11.2008 in I.A.No.240 of 2008 in O.S.No.515 of 2008, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Thorrur, wherein the said application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, was allowed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 4. The respondents herein filed the suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule building. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased the suit property from Chiluri Yadamma for a consideration of Rs.6,34,000/- under a registered sale deed and ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and the defendant who is a stranger to the suit property and having no right whatsoever tried to interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession when they were effecting repairs to the building on 28.07.2008. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit and inter alia contending that Chiluru Yadamma is the cousin sister of the defendant and he used to look after the suit property and the defendant is the absolute owner, having purchased the suit property from Korra Mallaiah under a simple sale deed and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the building was constructed by the defendant. The defendant further contended that when according to the plaintiffs they have purchased the property on 31.07.2008, the question of defendant interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession on 28.07.2008 does not arise. 5. The defendant filed I.A.No.242 of 2008 under order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that even going by the averments in the plaint, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and, therefore, the compliant is liable to be rejected. The plaintiffs filed a counter contending that the cause of action arose on 02.08.2008 but by oversight it was mentioned as 28.07.2008 which is only a typographical mistake and a petition for amendment is already filed. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.240 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by correcting the date on which the cause of action arose as 02.08.2008 instead of 28.07.2008. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.240 of 2008 permitting the amendment and dismissed I.A.No.242 of 2008 filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revisions petitions are filed by the petitioners. 6. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased the property on 31.07.2008 and ever since they are in possession and enjoyment thereof. The question of defendant interfering with their possession on 28.07.2008 does not obviously arise, as on that date the plaintiffs were not in possession. According to the plaintiffs, the date was mistakenly mentioned as 28.07.2008 in the plaint, as the date on which the cause of action arose, instead of 02.08.2008 due to typographical error. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the innocent parties should not be made to suffer due to the callousness or carelessness in drafting the pleadings and getting them typed by the advocates and their clerks. Obviously, the mistake in the date is a drafting error, but not on account of any erroneous instructions given by the party. It cannot, for a moment, be believed that the counsel deliberately mentioned the date of alleged interference by the defendant with plaintiffs’ possession as 28.07.2008 when the plaintiffs have instructed that they have purchased only on 31.07.2008 and entered into possession on the said date. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the application I.A.No.240 of 2008 at one place, the date is mentioned as 28.07.2008 and at another place it is mentioned as 27.08.2008, in the same para 2. As the date is incorrectly mentioned, it only exposes the callousness and negligence on the part of the concerned in drafting the affidavits and getting them typed. The ends of justice require that the mistakes committed by the counsel in drafting the pleadings should not make the parties suffer when it is apparent that such mistakes are in the nature of typographical errors. The plaintiffs can, therefore, be permitted to amend the plaint by correcting the date as ‘02.08.2008’ in the place of ‘28.07.2008’ and it would be open to the defendant to file additional written statement. The impugned order permitting the amendment does not, therefore, call for any interference. Consequently, the order dated 27.11.2008 in I.A.No.242 of 2008, dismissing the application filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th October, 2011 Lrkm