THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4874 of 2008 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 03.07.2008, passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1259 of 2008 in O.S. No. 459 of 1997, filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs praying to permit them to amend the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that the petitioners came to know about the actual extent of land to be partitioned only after defendant Nos. 5 and 6 filed their written statement, and therefore, the petitioners filed the present application praying to permit them to amend the plaint by increasing the extent of land to be partitioned from Acs. 2.35 gts to Acs. 4.20 gts., as mentioned in the application, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the same. In support of his argument to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court below ought to have allowed the amendment, placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in C.M. Vereekutty v. C.M. Mathukutty[1]. He thus prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants submitted that the petitioners filed the present application after closure of evidence of the petitioners and after defendant No.1 filed the chief-examination of his witnesses, and this apart, she contended that the case of defendant No.1 is that the suit schedule property itself is self-acquired property of himself and his two brothers. Hence, she submitted that the Court below rightly dismissed the present application, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and perused the order under revision. The petitioners, admittedly, filed the suit for partition in the year 1997. In the plaint, they mentioned the schedule property to be partitioned as Ac. 0.37 gts. in Sy. No. 247 and Ac. 1.38 gts in Sy. No. 248, specifically giving the boundaries. Though the petitioners claim that they came to know the actual extent of land through the written statement of the respondents, the fact remains, they filed the present application after they tendered their evidence and after the defendants filed the chief-examination of their witnesses. The petitioners, admittedly, filed the present application after lapse of eleven years, even though according to the petitioners, cause of action arose in 1994, May, 1997 and June 1997 when the defendants tried to alienate the properties. There can be no quarrel on the proposition of law that amendment of plaint should be allowed so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but amendments of plaint can be allowed only if the amendment sought does not change the nature of the suit and does not cause prejudice to the other side. Admittedly, in the instant case, it is the specific case of the respondents that the suit schedule property itself is self-acquired property of the defendants, and petitioners filed the suit mentioning the boundaries of the schedule property, and if the extra extent claimed for partition, by way of amendment of plaint, is allowed, it would certainly change the boundaries, in which case, much prejudice would be caused to the respondents, who have already cross-examined the witnesses of the petitioners. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th September, 2010 KSR [1] AIR 1981 SC 1533