IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5821 of 2008 Between: M. Jayanarayana Reddy .... PETITIONER And Varada Sudhakar & another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5821 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This is a revision petition by the Defendant No.2 questioning the order of the trial Court allowing the plaintiff’s application for amendment of plaint. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and recovery of possession and the Plaint A Schedule is further described in B and C Schedules claiming that those schedules are encroached by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Though the suit is pending from 2000 and though the issues were settled as early as on 17.08.2001, the trial in the suit has not yet commenced and while the suit is coming up for trial, the present application was moved by the plaintiff wherein he sought to substitute B and C Schedules in the plaint. The said application was opposed by the defendants by primarily contending that it is a highly belated application and should not be allowed. Under the impugned order, the trial court noticed that the application is belated but it was also seen that if substantial issue arises in the suit and such amendment is permissible particularly as trial has not yet commenced. The court below therefore exercised discretion in favour of respondent/plaintiff and allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.400/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that there is absolutely no justification for the plaintiff to seek amendment of plaint after several years and all facts were within the plaintiff’s knowledge during seven years when the suit was pending much before, when this application was moved. 4. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and in my view the trial court has correctly approached the issue and has exercised discretion in favour of plaintiff in accordance with law. Therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court would not be justified in interfering with the said discretion. Even otherwise the plaintiff claims that the encroached portions were not properly shown in the pleadings inasmuch as separately the encroached portions by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were not indicated and in order to ensure that there is no ambiguity regarding the plaint schedule, the same was sought to be substituted by proposed B and C Schedules. The amendment sought for, therefore, is merely clarificatory and as such, no error is committed by the trial court in allowing the same. 5. The civil revision petition, therefore, is dismissed. However, trial court shall take up the suit in accordance with law and decide the same expeditiously preferably by the end of 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 03, 2010 KL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.5821 OF 2008 August 03, 2010 KL