HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.R.P. No.3197 OF 2009 O R D E R: Heard the counsel. This Court ordered notice before admission on 17.7.2009. Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents. It is no doubt true that it was observed that the suit is coming up for trial and already chief-affidavit of PW.1 had been filed and at this stage, the amendment application cannot be allowed. The counsel for respondent placed a strong reliance on Golla Thirupathaiah and others v Karnam Ramasubbaiah and others[1], wherein it was held that “withdrawing of earlier admission made in plaint changing the cause of action and subject matter of suit and causing prejudice to the pleadings of the defendant not permissible”. It is no doubt true that after the commencement of trial, unless the due diligence is explained and satisfied the courts are expected to be cautious and normally such amendments cannot be allowed. Here it is a case, where instead of stating that the patta had been granted in the name of father-in-law,by oversight, it was stated that the patta was granted in the name of the husband. In the light of the respective stands taken, this Court is satisfied that it is only a bonafide mistake committed by oversight. Even otherwise, no prejudice would be caused by permitting such amendment. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. However, the respondent/defendant is at liberty to put in additional written statement in this regard, if the respondent is so advised. _________________ P.S.NARAYANA,J 18 August, 2009. PNV [1] 1999(3) ALT 111