THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5164 of 2010 Dated:19.11.2010 Between: Smt.Rovada, And others. ….Petitioners And Smt.Mallika. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5164 of 2010 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 23.07.2010 in I.A.No.388 of 2009 in O.S.No.180 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondent instituted the suit for permanent injunction. The petitioners are arrayed as defendants against whom an allegation was made that they are creating troubles for the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit is being opposed. It is at the stage of trial. At that juncture, the respondent filed I.A.No.388 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for amending the cause title insofar as the second defendant is concerned. She prayed the Court to amend the second defendant as Devanamma, wife of late Adhimoolam, instead of Devanamma, wife of Krishna. The same was allowed by the trial Court observing that the mistake occurred in the cause title due to inadvertence. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allowing of amendment after commencement of trial would cause prejudice and results in miscarriage of justice. The submission is belied by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC. Ordinarily, a civil Court cannot permit amendment of the pleadings by either party to the proceedings after commencement of trial, but the Court has discretion to allow an amendment if it is shown that the party seeking amendment in spite of due diligence could not have raised the matter. In this case, this is abundantly satisfied. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.11.2010 vs