IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1002 OF 2011 Date:20.08.2011 Between: Golla Bala Raju and 3 others. .....Petitioners AND The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. ....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1002 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 07.03.2011 in I.A.No.865 of 2010 in O.S.No.514 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 and read with Section 151 C.P.C, to permit them to amend the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is the case of the petitioners herein that they filed a suit in O.S.No.514 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, for declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction in their favour and against the respondents/defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners have shown the survey number and extent of land as well as all boundaries except wrong mention of northern side boundary of the suit schedule and they mentioned in the plaint that there were two pattas issued at two different points of times by revenue authority. The petitioners came to know that they have mentioned the northern boundary wrongly and it was done due to oversight of their previous counsel and hence they filed the above said application seeking amendment of the plaint. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if the amendment sought for is allowed, there was no change in the identity of the property and to avoid future complications, the name of the northern boundary only has to be amended for effective identification of the property. The plaintiffs filed an application along with the suit seeking temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants in respect of Ac.1.53 cents of wet land in Dhone village, Kurnool District, with the following boundaries: North : P. Lakshmi Reddy land South : Ediga Venkata Swamy land East : Kamsali Subbarayudu Chenu West : Tharakarama Nagar. 5. Now the amendment is sought to change the name of the northern boundary owner as the land of the plaintiffs instead of P. Lakshmi Reddy’s land. So, by virtue of this amendment, the issue involved in suit can be decided once for all and it would not create any new cause of action. Therefore, the trial court ought to have allowed the amendment petition for the purpose of mentioning the correct boundary of northern side of plaint schedule. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, in I.A.No.865 of 2010 in O.S.No.514 of 2002. Consequently IA No.865 of 2010 is allowed. No order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20.08.2011. Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1002 OF 2011 Date: 20.08.2011 Gk.