THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :1016 of 2009 Dated: 15.11.2010 Between: M.S.N. Murthy ..Petitioner And 1. Gollavilli Ramudu and another. .. Respondents. This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 1016 of 2009 ORDER: The defendant in O.S.No.764 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, is aggrieved by the order of the said Court allowing the respondents’ application for amendment of the plaint, whereunder the respondents-plaintiffs wanted to substitute description of southern boundary of the plaint schedule by words ‘Kaluva’ by removing ‘Gedda’. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid application was allowed by the Court below and the suit is at the stage of arguments. He also submits that an advocate-commissioner was appointed pending the suit to localize the suit schedule property and he has also filed a report confirming the southern boundary as ‘Gedda’. The learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that without appreciating the report of the advocate-commissioner, by cryptic order the Court below allowed the application. The learned Counsel also submits that by changing the boundary, the respondents- plaintiffs may try to substitute the entire plaint schedule itself. The learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs, at whose instance the application for amendment was allowed, submits that the suit schedule property is not being altered in any manner except correcting the description of southern boundary from ‘Gedda’ to ‘Kaluva’ and the said application for amendment was rightly allowed by the Court below. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment, it is stated that the respondents-plaintiffs are illiterates and the Counsel who filed the plaint did not know the difference between ‘Gadda’ and ‘Kaluva’ and the said Counsel is being no more and on the visit by physical verification, correct southern boundary is sought to be mentioned by seeking amendment. The revision petitioner herein filed a detailed counter in the Court below, but the contentions as are advanced in the revision petition were not raised. Even otherwise, permitting the southern boundary to be described as Kaluva instead of Gedda by allowing the amendment would not amount to granting any relief in the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs. The respondents-plaintiffs will have to succeed in the suit on the basis of evidence led in the suit and the trial Court, while disposing of the suit shall look into entire suit record including the advocate commissioner’s report in accordance with law. Since the Court below permitted the respondents-plaintiffs to correct minor mistake in the description of the southern boundary, I do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Court below is directed to hear and dispose of the suit expeditiously in any case before 31st March, 2011. _________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Dated: 15.11.2010 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 1016 of 2009 15.11.2010