IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3603, 3604 & 3651 of 2010 DATE:31.01.2011 C.R.P.No.3603 of 2010 Between: Mrs.Baheebunnisa Hadi and another …… Petitioners And Mrs.Pallavi N.More …..Respondent C.R.P.No.3604 of 2010 Between: Mrs.Baheebunnisa Hadi and another …… Petitioners And Mrs.Avanthika Dalmia …..Respondent C.R.P.No.3651 of 2010 Between: Mrs.Baheebunnisa Hadi and another …… Petitioners And Mrs.Pallavi N.More …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3603, 3604 & 3651 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : These three revision petitions arose out of two suits O.S.Nos.433 of 1998 and 434 of 1998 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed by two sisters. The plaintiff in O.S. No.433 of 1998 filed I.A. No.929 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of plaint schedule amending ‘G-II’ with ‘G-III’ and also Northern boundary as ‘G-II’ instead of ‘G-I’; and also filed I.A. No.954 of 2010 under the same provision for amendment of Southern boundary in the plaint schedule from ‘G-III’ with ‘Lobby and Lift’. The plaintiff in O.S. No.434 of 1998 filed I.A. No.930 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C for amendment of plaint schedule amending ‘G-III’ with ‘G-II’ and also Northern boundary by amending ‘G-I’ with ‘G- II’. The ground urged by the plaintiffs inter alia are that mistakes have crept in the plaint schedules in both the suits when both the suits were filed simultaneously on the same date preparing the plaints simultaneously by the same Advocate. It is stated that original advocate who drafted the plaint died and that when the new advocate for the plaintiffs was preparing the parties for their examination, the mistakes in the respective plaint schedules came to be noticed. The lower Court found favour with the plaintiffs in both the suits and allowed the amendments of plaints sought for by the respective plaintiffs. It made the defendants to approach this Court with these revision petitions. 2) It is contended by the revision petitioners’ counsel that the proposed amendments are belated and that the plaintiffs approached the lower Court for the amendment after a lapse of 12 years after filing the suits and that if fresh suits are to be filed with the proposed amended plaints, then such suits would be barred by limitation and that the amendment petitions were filed in the lower Court after starting of trial. On the other hand, it is stated by the respondents’ counsel that except filing of P.W-1’s affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, trial of the suits has not yet begun and that after death of the previous advocate, the suits were dismissed for default and ultimately the suits could be restored with orders of this Court and that in that process 4 to 5 years were lost. 3) In T.N.Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. V. T.N.Electricity Board[1], it was held by the Supreme Court that the Court would as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. I n South Konkan Distilleries V. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik[2], it is observed by the Supreme Court that the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new cause of action is barred. At the same time, it was further observed by the Supreme Court therein that where the amendment does not constitute addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts merely to a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment is to be allowed even after expiry of statutory period of limitation. In Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd.S.K.Mohammed V. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co.,[3] the Supreme Court upheld rejection of amendment of written statement sought on the ground that if permitted to be introduced by way of amendment, it would have completely changed nature of original defence and that it would bring about an entirely new plea which was never taken up either at the time of the dealings between the parties or in the original pleadings. 4) In Sajjan Kumar V. Ram Kishan[4], it was held by the Supreme Court that amendment of plaint even in final stages of suits can be allowed while imposing costs, if incorrect description of suit property in the plaint is sought to be amended. In such a situation, the Supreme Court observed that the proposed amendment is necessary to bring real question in controversy between the parties to the fore. 5) In Pithani Suryanarayana V. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore[5] it was observed by the Supreme Court that the Court holds power to allow amendment of plaint even after passing of final decree provided the application is bonafide and does not cause injustice to the other side and does not affect rights already accrued to the other side. 6) In the present case, the respective plaintiffs sought for amendments to the respective plaints with regard to the description of the property in the respective plaint schedules only. They are not seeking amendment of plaint either to introduce a new cause of action or to make a different claim. It is only when the proposed amendment seeks to introduce a new claim on the basis of new cause of action, then the question would arise whether the claim based on the proposed amendment would be barred by limitation or not. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs are not seeking amendment of the plaint in respect of the above prohibited areas. The plaintiffs are seeking amendment of the plaints for the purpose of rectifying improper description of the plaint schedule properties. The said mistake occurred because both the plaints were drafted simultaneously by the same advocate and were presented in the lower Court simultaneously. Even after amendments, both the suits remain to be suits for specific performance of the respective agreements only. The proposed amendments are intended to bring the plaint schedules in consonance with descriptions thereof contained in the schedule of the respective suit documents. There is absolutely no lack of bonafides on the part of the respective plaintiffs. The proposed amendments are not going to cause any prejudice muchless serious prejudice to the other side. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the lower Court is justified in exercising the discretion by allowing the amendments of plaints in the respective plaints. 7) In the result, all the three revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 31, 2011 ksh [1] (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 392 [2] AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1177 [3] AIR 1978 Supreme Court 798 [4] (2005)13 Supreme Court Cases 89 [5] (2009)11 Supreme Court Cases 308