HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CRP.No.2563 of 2011 and CRP.(SR).No.15310 of 2011 ORDER: Both these revisions can be disposed of as the issue involved is one and the same. 2. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited-the petitioner herein was the defendant in the suit. The suit was instituted for ejection of the petitioner herein from the suit premises. The suit was decreed. The petitioner-defendant herein has carried the matter in appeal by instituting A.S.No.74 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (FTC), Khammam at Kothagudem. 3. During the pendency of the said appeal, it has dawned on the petitioner herein that the suit schedule has not been carefully drawn by the plaintiffs. As against a total extent of 2200 sq. yards of land originally leased out in favour of the petitioner herein, the suit schedule mistakenly described it as 4400 sq. yards. Further, the plaint has also inappropriately described the boundaries of the said land. Hence, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.1054 of 2010 seeking permission for amendment of its written statement. After this application has been taken out by the defendant, the plaintiff obviously opened his eyes and realized the fault committed in not properly describing the boundaries of the suit schedule land and also it’s extent. Hence to correct the error, I.A.No.20 of 2011 was moved by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint. Very properly, both these I.A.’s have been tried together by the Court below. But unfortunately, while allowing I.A.No.220 of 2011, I.A.No.1054 of 2010, moved by the petitioner herein has been dismissed. 4. I do not wish to go into the merits of the matter at this stage. When both parties to the same suit have sought for an identical relief in contact by instituting two separate IA’s, the Court below ought to have allowed both of them instead of allowing the plaintiff to amend its pleadings and rejecting the said permission to the defendant. Assuming for a minute that the petitioner herein has not moved any such application seeking amendment of its written statement, by virtue of the order passed in I.A.No.220 of 2011, permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint, the Court is bound to provide an opportunity to the defendants in the suit to come up with an additional written statement, if they so desire. By allowing the I.A.No.1054 of 2010 moved by the petitioner herein, perhaps such a further stage could have been obviated by the Appellate Court. Further, the very purpose behind I.A.No.1054 of 2010 stands achieved automatically when I.A.No.220 of 2011 is allowed for correction of the plaint schedule. Only on this ground, I pass the following order allowing I.A.No.1054 of 2010 in A.S.No.74 of 2009 and moved by the petitioner herein. 5. Therefore, I direct the I.A.No.1054 of 2010 to be allowed along with I.A.No.220 of 2011. Accordingly the CRP No.2563 of 2011 stands allowed while CRP.(SR).No.15310 of 2011 which is directed against the same order in allowing I.A.No.220 of 2011 moved by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Now the appeal A.S.No.74 of 2009 will accordingly be dealt with by the Appellate Court. Amended copies of the plaint and the amended copies of the written statement shall be filed within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the Court below. 6. In the result, CRP.No.2563 of 2011 is allowed and CRP.(SR) No.15310 of 2011 is dismissed. _____________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 27-08-2011 SP HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CRP.No.2563 of 2011 and CRP.(SR).No.15310 of 2011 27-08-2011 SP