IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4078 of 2010 Between: Smt. Tarala Kavitha, D/o.late Tarala Komraiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.3-3-146/A, Chappal Bazaar, Kacheguda, Hyderabad … Petitioner And Miskinuddin @ Miski, S/o.not known, aged about 59 years, Occ: Retd. Govt. Servant, R/o.C/o.Pasha Tent House, Nanditaranagar, Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal Distirct, and another ... Respondents Order: Heard Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 07-05-2010, passed in I.A.No.704 of 2009 in O.S.No.1051 of 2008 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit, which was filed for injunction simplicitor. I.A.No.1844 of 2008 was also filed seeking temporary injunction. Further, the petitioner-plaintiff also filed I.A.No.704 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and schedule of property with regard to southern boundary of the suit schedule property. The Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application. Hence, this revision petition. As per the schedule, the property is described with boundaries showing southern boundary as ‘others land’. The first respondent filed written statement. At that stage, when it was noticed that, while executing the gift deed, boundary was not correctly mentioned, a rectification deed was got executed by the petitioner. In similar lines, seeking amendment of the boundary in tune with the rectification deed, she filed application in I.A.No.704 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the suit schedule property. In the said application, she also sought amendment of the cause title with regard to the second defendant, but when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the relief only to the extent of schedule of the property. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as there was bona fide mistake in executing the gift deed, the same was rectified by way of a rectification deed and thereafter amendment was sought for; in that view of the matter, the court below ought to have allowed the amendment for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that only when the respondents/defendants have taken such defence in the counter, application in I.A.No.704 of 2009 is filed and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government has prepared a layout in Sy.No.226, situated at Laskhar Singaram village, Hanamkonda Mandal and one of the plots therein was allotted to the mother of the petitioner, i.e. plot No.58. In the said approved layout, when allotment had already been done in favour of the mother of the petitioner; if amendment of one of the boundaries of the said plot is permitted, by virtue of rectification deed, it cannot be said that the said amendment will prejudice the case of the respondents. It has been held time and again that applications for amendment at initial stages are to be considered liberally provided such amendment does not prejudice the case of the respondents. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is a fit case to allow the application filed by the petitioner to the extent of amendment of the boundary of the suit schedule property. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under challenge, dated 07-05-2010, passed in I.A.No.704 of 2009, by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is set-aside insofar as it relates to rejection of amendment of southern boundary as specified in the plaint schedule. Consequently, I.A.No.704 of 2009 stands allowed accordingly. Civil revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 4, 2010 MRR