THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4790 AND 4791 OF 2007 DT.17.06.2010 Between:; Beesapu Aruna and two others. ………..Petitionrs. Vs. R.Chinthalli and six others. ………………respondents. (Parties are one and the same in both the revision petitions.) O R D E R: Since both the revision petitions arise out of the same proceedings and parties are also one and the same, they are being takenup together for disposal, at the instance of both the learned counsel. C.R.P.No.4790 of 2007 is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.09.2007 passed in I.A.No.418 of 2007 in O.S.No.18 of 2001 on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking to amend the plaint-A schedule was dismissed. C.R.P.No.4791 of 2007 is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.09.2007 passed in I.A.No.419 of 2007 in O.S.No.18 of 2001, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 C.P., seeking to reopen the matter for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of such amendment, no further evidence needs to be laid and the matter can be disposed of without any such evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusing the material placed on record, I am of the view that though the suit is comprehensive in nature and the amendment which was sought for by the petitioners is only a formal one and as the petitioners are trying to identify the properties ratherthan making any addition to the suit, the revision petitions can be are allowed. The revision petitions are, therefore, allowed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.17.06.2010 tjs