HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CRP No. 167 of 2008 O R D E R: Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for amendment of the plaint by the trial Court. The said application was moved seeking to describe the plaint schedule correctly, for some of the items, where an error was committed in description of the boundaries. The proposed amendment following corrections are sought, that is item No.2 of the plaint schedule i.e, on the Northern boundary of Plaint ‘A’ Schedule and Southern boundary of ‘C’ Schedule as well as Southern boundary of ‘D’ Schedule. The consequential correction is also sought for that instead of the name of Srinivasa Rao – 2nd defendant, the plaintiff’s name to be inserted and vice-versa. There are similar such corrections in the description of the plaint schedule. The said application was opposed and dismissed by the Court below on the ground that it changes the entire nature of the suit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the Memo of Service, both the respondents were served long back in the revision petition, but nobody was appearing since then. 3. Admittedly, the suit is for Mandatory Injunction and trial has not yet commenced. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs, on the date of the application, has specifically stated in the affidavit that some errors have crept in, in the plaint schedule on account of their old age and those mistakes are sought to be corrected which will not cause any prejudice to other side nor will change the cause of action or nature of the suit and that the court below has not examined the proposed amendment in a proper perspective and has failed to notice that the said amendment is merely to remove the ambiguity in the description of boundaries of some of the items in which case, the plaint schedule will now be clearly described. 5. I am unable to see any prejudice to the respondents nor any reason to object or complain to the clarificatory amendment; as the nature of the suit does not indicate any change by the proposed amendment. The impugned order is therefore, liable to be set aside and the revision deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed permitting the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint schedule as prayed for. On such amendment, the respondents however, are at liberty to file Additional Written Statement within such time as the trial Court will allow for the same. No costs. _____________ 03-09-2010 Mjl/*