IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3349 AND 4967 OF 2007 Between: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3349 OF 2007 Naredla Gopal Rao. --- Petitioner/ Defendant No.3 AND The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Serilingampally Branch, R.R. District and Two others. --- Respondents. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4967 OF 2007 Naredla Gopal Rao. --- Petitioner/ Defendant No.3 AND The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Serilingampally Branch, R.R. District and Two others. --- Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3349 AND 4967 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are filed by the third defendant in the suits filed by the first Respondent-Bank. The plaint schedule describes the plaint schedule property with specified boundaries. The said suits were filed by the first Respondent-Bank and the property therein was mortgaged by defendant No.3 and the plaint ‘B’ schedule is described as a property bearing survey No.697/A, admeasuring 750 Sq. Yards situated at Mangal Das Nagar, Guntur Municipality, Guntur. Boundaries shown in the plaint schedule are as follows : East : Others property. South : Property belongs to Subrahmanyam. West : Road. North : Municipal Road. While the said suits were pending, the first Respondent-Bank came to know that there are several transactions by the predecessor of the third defendant whereunder various portions of the property belonging to the father of the third defendant were sold to various people under registered documents and thereby based on the proceedings of competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, the Bank came to know that 750 Sq. Yards of the third defendant comprises of two pieces of land admeasuring 150 Sq. Yards and 600 Sq. Yards and they have different boundaries which tallies with the situation on ground. The Bank, therefore, filed applications seeking amendment of plaints but filed under Order 6 Rule 18 C.P.C. contending that at the time of mortgage, the third defendant produced a self obtained encumbrance certificate No. 4785/1999 and believing him, the same was noted as security and the property shown therein with the boundaries was taken as correct. The plaints also came to be filed with the same details, while now it transpires that the boundaries of the plaint schedules are not correctly described. Hence, the applications to amend plaint schedule as follows : Boundaries for 150 Sq. Yards : North : Property belongs to S. Srinivasa Rao & G. Vanisree. South : Property belongs to T. Sankara Rao. East : Neighbours Property. West : Road. Boundaries for 600 Sq. Yards : North : Property belongs to T. Sankara Rao. South : Neighbours property. East : Neighbours Property. West : Road. The said applications for amendment were contested by the third defendant, primarily, contending that the amendment as sought for is not permissible as the Bank had already examined PWs. 1 and 2 and that said amendment could change the plaint schedule totally. The Court below considered the said contentions on either side and based on the factual position as mentioned by the Bank in the affidavit and the fact that the plaint schedule is now correctly described as found in the order of competent authority, Urban Land Ceilings, an opportunity was found necessary to be given to the plaintiff by allowing the amendment. The applications were accordingly allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/-, payable to the District Legal Services Authority. The aforesaid orders are questioned in these revisions by the third defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently contends that amendment in a part heard suit ought not to have been allowed by the Court below and even otherwise, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has not been kept in mind by the Court below. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Usha Devi Vs. Rizwan Ahamd and others[1]. Learned counsel also contends that the entire plaint schedule is not now sought to be converted by totally different properties, thereby, causing any amount of prejudice to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that allowing of an amendment in such a manner would totally alter the cause of action as well as the nature of the suits and as such, the Court below committed error in allowing the applications. The first Respondent-Bank, though served, nobody appears on their behalf, which shows that the first Respondent-Bank is perhaps not serious in prosecuting the Revisions. The fact, however, remains that the original property belonging to father of the third defendant underwent several changes on account of the alienations made by his father and which consequently led to changes in boundaries of the remaining extent. It is noteworthy that the extent of property in 750 Sq. Yards offered as security by the third defendant does not undergo any change even after the amendment and the only change is that instead of one composite property, as shown in the plaint schedule, now the suit schedule comprises of two pieces of land with the specified boundaries. The amendment, no doubt, is belated and is sought for after two witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. But the discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing the amendment on being satisfied with the cause shown by the first Respondent-Bank, cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction. The said discretion, therefore, does not deserve to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when suits of 2001 are pending and trial is held up. It is also well settled that mere allowing of amendment does not take way right of the petitioner/third defendant to contest the amended plaint by taking all pleas permissible under law. The petitioner/third defendant shall also have a right to file additional written statement and contest the suits on merits. Mere allowing of amendment, therefore, does not amount to acceptance of pleas of the first Respondent-Bank and as such, no prejudice to be caused to the respondents. However, the manner in which the first respondent bank has prosecuted the suits, the said amendment applications and their total non appearance in these revisions is required to be noted and as such, the costs imposed by the trial Court need to be appropriately modified. Accordingly, the order of the Court below imposing costs of Rs.500/- for allowing the amendment in each of the two suits, which are subject matter of these two revision petitions, shall stand modified and the first Respondent-Bank shall have to pay the costs of Rs.2,500/- in each of the suits. The costs shall be paid before the District Legal Services Authority, within a period of six (6) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amendment shall stand dismissed. In the event of compliance of the order of this Court as above, the trial Court shall permit the petitioner-third defendant to file additional written statement and shall hear and dispose of the suits on merits, in accordance with law. With the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Date. 08-07-2011. DSH [1] (2008) 3 SCC 717