THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3553 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.311 of 1999 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, namely the land in Survey No.98 of Kondapur Village. The respondent filed written statement. The trial of the suit progressed and even the judgment is said to have been reserved. At that stage, the respondent filed I.A.No.2336 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit it to amend the written statement. The proposed amendment relates to the correction of the name of the village. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the respondent purchased the land in Shaikpet Village from certain persons. It appears that it realized the mistake at a later point of time and sought amendment to the effect that the land is in Kondapur Village and that the purchase was from different persons. This was said to be on the basis of the text of the sale deed through which the property was purchased. The application was opposed by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 21.07.2008, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. It is, no doubt, true that there was inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in filing the application. Though it is permissible in law for a party to a suit to seek amendment of the pleadings at any stage, the Parliament amended the provisions placing certain restrictions. All the same, the prohibition is not absolute. The amendment sought by the respondent is only as regards the name of the village and the persons from whom the property was purchased. This, in turn, is borne out by the documents concerned. The mere fact that a typographical error has crept in the written statement in the context of describing the manner in which the property was acquired cannot be said to be outside the scope of the powers of the Court. In case the petitioner intends to adduce any further evidence in the light of this amendment, it shall always be open to it. The inconvenience caused to the petitioner was already compensated by the trial Court by awarding costs of Rs.5,000/-. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.07.2010 kdl