THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5245 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 19.09.2006 in I.A.No.154 of 2006 in O.S.No.2345 of 2004 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in dismissing the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to add five lines of description of schedule of property mentioned in the plaint as schedule “B” property. Admittedly, the suit is for perpetual injunction and the matter is coming up for arguments. It is only at this stage, the present petition is filed. As can be seen from the record, it is stated that the evidence was completed and posted for reply arguments on 16.02.2006. Further, it is noticed that the description of the plaint schedule property has not been properly mentioned and that the schedule of property mentioned with wrong boundaries is due to typographical mistake. However, in the Court below, by taking into account the entire facts and circumstances and also in view of the fact that the entire evidence has been set forth from both the sides and that too, after commencement of arguments, it is not fit case to show any indulgence. Further, it is also observed that except the oral version of the petitioner, no supporting document has been filed. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish his contention by filing any documentary evidence. Considering the fact that there is cross examination to the effect of the boundaries at a length, the Court below held that the petitioner failed to prove that the boundaries on the plaint schedule properties on northern and southern sides are of Shanker Singh and Kundan Bai are without any documentary evidence. Having regard to the finding vis-à-vis the amendment as sought for now, the petitioner seeks the revision thereof. This Court granted interim stay as long back as on 07.11.2007. The suit itself is of the year 2004. The very application has come up at the backend of the stage of the suit request for amendment in regard to the property description. Therefore, the Court below did not find favour with the same and dismissed the application. In support, the petitioner cited a decision reported in Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan[1], wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that merely on the ground of delay at the fag end of the application, it could not be rejected. In that case, the amendment sought was description of the plaint. On the ground that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of bringing to the Court the real question in controversy between the parties, especially having regard to the fact that the boundaries as mentioned in the run note were carried in the pleadings, the Apex Court found that any amendment seeking correction thereof can certainly be allowed and hence, that appeal was allowed. In the present case, there is total variation of the facts. The exhibits produced by the petitioner do not consist the boundaries mentioned to be corrected both at the stage of drafting the plaint and at the time of seeking amendment. Hence, the said decision has no application to the present facts of the case. In the circumstances, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order of the Court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, HACJ) 18th November 2010 RRB [1] (2005) 13 SCC 89