THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3270 of 2011 Date:04th November, 2011 Between: Kaki Obulamma W/o.Kaki Obanna ..... Petitioner AND 1.Gurrala Thippanna S/o.Gurrala Lakshumaiah & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3270 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 26.04.2011, passed in I.A.No.590 of 2011 in O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order VI, Rule 17 and Sec.151 CPC. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and whereas the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. On the ground of a typographical mistake in the written statement, the defendants filed I.A.No.590 of 2011 under Order VI, Rule 17 and Sec.151 CPC seeking amendment. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, permitted the defendants to amend the written statement to the extent of typographical mistake that has crept in para.6 of the written statement. For better appreciation, I may refer paras. 5 and 6 of the order impugned in the revision, which read as hereunder: “5. As one could notice from the schedule of this application, the proposed amendments are to add the word “but not” in 6th paragraph of the written statement and also to add a sentence that the court fee paid by the respondent is not correct since there is no joint possession in the suit schedule properties along with the petitioners. These are the simple amendments sought for by the petitioner in the written statement. 6. This court has perused the written statement and other material part of the record, particularly 6th paragraph of the written statement and found that it was a typographical mistake to have avoided the word “but not” before a particular sentence and therefore, it is justifiable to permit the petitioner to add the said two words.” 3. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 18.08.2011. Despite notice being served, the respondents did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court is not justified in permitting the defendants to carry out the amendment in the written statement after commencement of the trial and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 6. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned trial Judge allowed the amendment of the written statement after arriving at a finding that the proposed amendment is only to rectify a typographical mistake. The trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in permitting the respondents/defendants to amend the written statement. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:04th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3270 of 2011 Date:04th November, 2011