THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1095 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-2nd defendant as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decretal order, dated 25.2.2009, in I.A.No.1080 of 2007 in O.S.No.784 of 2002, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 152 of C.P.C. seeking to amend the decree by supplying the omission of decree under the occupation of defendant No.1 as well as his men. 3. The petitioner is defendant No.2 and the 1st respondent is plaintiff and 2nd respondent is defendant No.1 in the suit O.S.No.784 of 2002. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to as per their array in the suit. 5. The factual background is that the plaintiff filed two suits in O.S.No.184 of 1998 and O.S.No.2255 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for eviction of the defendants and to vacate delivery of possession claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the said suits were transferred and re-numbered as O.S.No.784 of 2002 and O.S.No.785 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for joint trial together along with the suits O.S.No.543 of 1995 and O.S.No.755 of 2001 filed by the 2nd defendant against the plaintiff for declaration of his rights over the very same property and for injunction. One Sri Rama Rao, introduced by the 2nd defendant also filed suit O.S.No.419 of 2005 in respect of the very same property. All the suits were tried together and eventually the trial Court by common judgment and decree, dated 13.4.2007, decreed the suits filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the suits filed by the defendants and the third party. After passing of the decree, since schedule of property was not mentioned properly, the plaintiff filed the present application I.A.No.1080 of 2007 in O.S.No.784 of 2002 for amendment of the decree and the same was allowed. Hence the present civil revision petition by the 2nd defendant. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant that the amendment of the schedule of the suit property cannot be made under Section 152 of C.P.C., at this stage. 7. As could be seen from the impugned order, dated 25.2.2009, the Court below found that while drafting the plaint, advertently, the total area of the land and plot number have not been mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. It was noticed by the Court below that in all the five suits, the suit schedule property is one and the same. It was also found that the decree was typed, but the schedule property was not attached in the present suit and further that if the decree was amended no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. The Court below, placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court, arrived at the conclusion that the application filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed the same. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered view that there is no mis-interpretation of law laid down by the Apex Court and the facts on record disclose that the suit schedule property in all the five suits is one and the same. Mere, non-mentioning or mistaken description of the suit schedule property in the schedule of the suit filed by the plaintiff shall not cause prejudice or take away the benefits given in the decree passed in his favour, particularly when there is no dispute with regard to the identify of the property in all the five suits. It is not for the 2nd defendant to dispute the maintainability of the present application under Section 152 C.P.C. In order to meet the ends of justice, the Court can interfere and make amendment of the decree, provided no prejudice would be caused to either side. 9. In the instant case, as already noticed, no prejudice is caused in amending the decree. That apart, the 2nd defendant is well aware that the suit schedule property is one and the same, which is obvious from the fact that all the suits filed by both the parties were tried together. The decision of the Court, in this regard, shall not cause proliferation of litigation on mere technicalities, but shall give a quietus to the litigation. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the impugned order, dated 25.2.2009, passed by the Court below and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 01.04.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1095 of 2009 01.04.2010 (Msr)