IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :1526 of 2009 Between: Pedaballi Nagamma, Chakrayapet Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND Pedaballi Lakshmma, Anantapur District and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :1526 of 2009 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.577 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. The plaintiff claimed title and possession in respect of the suit schedule property on the basis of a Will dated 12.9.1994 executed by her husband Peddavalli Gangireddy. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit claim. The plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1. and while the matter was coming up for further evidence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1230 of 2008 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by incorporating a new paragraph with regard to the decree dated 09.04.1990 in O.S.No.34 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kadapa, in respect of the very same property. It was pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that the said fact could not be mentioned in the plaint originally filed by over sight and that she may be permitted to amend the plaint as both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were parties to the said suit which was already decreed. The Court below by order dated 28.1.2009 dismissed the I.A.No.1230 of 2008 holding that if the amendment was allowed, the suit would become complicated and the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff herein as well as the 1st defendant were parties to O.S.No.34 of 1989. It is also not disputed before this Court that the subject matter of the present suit and O.S.No.34 of 1989 is one and the same. In the circumstances, the conclusion of the Court below that the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the defendants is unfounded and cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the amendment is essential to decide the real question involved in the suit and moreover it does not in any way alter the nature of the suit. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order dated 28.1.2009 is hereby set aside and I.A.No.1230 of 2008 shall stand allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:1.6.2010 mrb