HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5042 OF 2009 Friday, the thirtieth day of October, Two Thousand and Nine Between Smt. Vidya Manoharlal Petitioner AND Mrs. K.Kalavathi Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 5042 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the appellant in R.A. No. 41 of 2009 aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2009 passed in I.A. (SR) No. 9892 of 2009 in I.A. No. 185 of 2009 by the learned Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC refusing to amend the door No. as 12-2-709/74 instead of 12-2-709/4, as mentioned in IA No. 185 of 2009, which was filed seeking a direction to the respondent herein to produce the original registered instrument in respect of house bearing the Municipal No. 12-2-709/7, Mehdipatnam, standing in the name of PW-1 and to answer certain interrogatories. The respondent herein has filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner on various grounds, which was allowed on two grounds one of which is personal requirement of the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present Rent Appeal is filed by the petitioner – tenant. It is case of the petitioner herein that subsequent to the orders passed in the eviction petition, she came to know that the respondent owns and possesses a residential and commercial unit bearing Municipal No. 12- 2-709/7 (which is now sought to be amended as 12-2- 709/74), Mehdipatnam, in the name of PW-1 and, therefore, when the respondent has alternative accommodation, she cannot seek eviction of the petitioner on the ground of personal requirement and since there occurred a typographical error in mentioning the Municipal No. 12-2-709/7 instead of 2-2-709/74, in IA No. 185 of 2009, the petitioner filed the present IA SR No. 9892 of 2009 seeking amendment thereof, which was dismissed by the court below. Questioning the said dismissal order, the present Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from the impugned order, had the mistake really been a typographical mistake, the petitioner ought to have taken steps at the earliest point of time. At this belated stage and that too after the respondent having denied that the house with door No.12-2-709/7 is owned or possessed by her, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek the amendment. Having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari October 30, 2009 MAS