IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4385 of 2010 Between: Kadium Golla Satyanarayana ..... Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh State, rep., by the District Collector, Kurnool & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. Himabindu for Sri P. Veera Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4385 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 17.08.2010 in I.A.No.180 of 2007 in A.S.No.39 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC), Kurnool at Nandyal. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is plaintiff in O.S.No.74 of 2000 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. The said suit was in relation to an extent of Ac.2.34 cents in Sy.No.5047 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed A.S.No.39 of 2003 in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC), Kurnool at Nandyal. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.180 of 2007 seeking amendment of suit schedule by substituting survey number and extent as Sy.No.94/2 and Ac.1.76 cents for Sy.No.5047 and Ac.2.34 cents respectively. The petitioner also proposed amendment to the boundaries. This application, which was opposed by the respondents, was dismissed by the Court below. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that dismissal of the petitioner’s application is erroneous, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court is justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application because the proposed amendment not merely involves change of survey number, but also boundaries. Change of boundaries necessarily implies change of the subject matter of the suit. Thus, by allowing amendment, the entire nature and complexion of the suit undergoes a change. Therefore, the appellate court has not committed any error in dismissing the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.5847 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.10.2010 ES