THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5410 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.483 of 2006 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the petitioner for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner and a report has since been filed. According to the report, there is a minor discrepancy as to the measurements of the suit schedule property, when the particulars furnished in the suit schedule are compared with the situation on ground. the difference is said to be about 6 feet. The respondent filed I.A.No.621 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the plaint by adding a sentence to the effect that the vendors of his vendor and their neighbours have encroached to an extent of 6 feet on the road margin on the eastern side and constructed a room that is shown in the plaint plan. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order, dated 14.10.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri J.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the trial Court did not undertake any discussion, though the I.A. filed by the respondent was seriously objected to by the petitioner. The trial Court was under obligation to take note of the contention of the parties and state reasons in support of its conclusions. Howsoever correct the conclusions, may be, bereft of reasons, they lose their significance. The controversy in the present case is very limited. The respondent described his property with reference to the boundaries. It is only in the course of verification by the Commissioner appointed by the Court that certain discrepancies were found between the boundaries of the suit land as furnished in the sale deed on the one hand, and as found on ground, on the other. Obviously to explain this discrepancy, the respondent wanted to incorporate a plea that a strip of 6 feet covering road margin was encroached by his vendor’s vendors. It is ultimately for the respondent to prove that fact. No prejudice can be said to have been suffered by the petitioner on account of such a plea. If one takes into account, the developments that prompted the respondent to file the I.A., namely the report of the Commissioner, it cannot be said that there was undue delay on the part of the respondent in seeking the amendment. The petitioner can certainly oppose the said plea by filing additional written statement. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to file additional written statement in respect of the plea that is raised through the amendment. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.12.2009 kdl