HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R. P. No. 4289 of 2009 DATED: 24.09.2009 Between: P.Mysaiah and four others .. Petitioners and E. Venkatesh and another .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 05.08.2009 made in I.A. No. 1050 of 2009 in O.S.No.411 of 2003 by II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. to permit them to amend the plaint by inserting certain words, was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No.411 of 2003 for mandatory and permanent injunction and directed the defendants to remove the four pillars illegally constructed by them. The defendants filed written statement and after chief examination of P.W.1 was over, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present application seeking amendment of the plaint by inserting certain words as prayed therein. The respondents-defendants contested the said application. Upon hearing the parties, the Court below, by the order under revision, dismissed the application seeking amendment. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and perused the order under revision. Admittedly, the petitioners filed the application seeking to permit them to insert the word “eastern” after the word “northern” wherever occurred in the plaint. Though, they contended that the said mistake had occurred due to typographical error, the fact remains, the said word had occurred at several places in the plaint. It is not just in the plaint, but even in the chief-examination of PW1, it is stated that respondent No.1 started some construction work in his place and tried to dig pits on the northern part of the suit schedule property and that in his absence he raised the pillars. The petitioners filed the present application only when respondent No.1 pointed out that pillars were raised on the northern side in his chief-affidavit. Though the petitioners contended that the mistake occurred due to typographical, but by the conduct of the petitioners in filing the present application only when respondent No.1 pointed out the mistake shows that they were not diligent in requesting for correction at the earliest point of time. Since if the amendment is allowed it would amount to permitting the petitioners to fill up the lacunae in the chief-affidavit, the Court below dismissed the application praying amendment on the ground that it is not bona fide, and no interference is called for therewith by this Court. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.08.2009 passed by II Additional Junior Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 24.09.2009 bcj