THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4227 OF 2008 DT.09.03.2010 Between: A.Ramayya and seven others ………Petitioners Vs. N.Jayanna …………………….Defendants O R D E R: 1) The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.74 of 2007 on the file of the court of Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. 2) The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, described as dry land to an extent of Ac 9.86 cents situated in S.No.78-A. 3) The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. At that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.200 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking to amend the plaint schedule by substituting S.No.78-A as S.No.79-1-B. Similarly, the extent of the suit schedule land was sought to be altered as Ac 5.52 cents instead of Ac 9.86 cents. An amendment to the western boundary of the suit schedule property was also sought, apart from the father’s name of the plaintiff. 4) Though the defendants opposed the application, by order dated 18.08.2008 the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg permitted the amendment on payment of costs of Rs.200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 5) Heard both sides. As could be seen, the proposed amendment was only to the extent of the plaint schedule property. Since the said amendment did not alter the nature of the suit nor introduced a new cause of action, the court below had rightly allowed the amendment. Since it is always open to the defendants to file an additional written statement insofar as the amended plaint is concerned, it cannot be said that it had resulted in injustice to the other side. 6) In the circumstances, the order under revision needs no interference by this court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 7) Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI J., Dt.09.03.2010 tjs