THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.213 of 2011 Dated:- 01st July, 2011 Between:- Neyyila Ramanamma …Petitioner AND Sana Shanmukha Rao and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.213 of 2011 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order and decree dated 17.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.58 of 2009 in O.S.No.23 of 2009 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the Original Suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiff filed the Original Suit for declaration of his easamentary rights over the plaint schedule property and sought consequential permanent injunction. The first defendant is Sana Shankumha Rao, S/o. Late Veerabhadra Rao. In the plaint, the name of the second defendant was shown as ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’, W/o. Sana Shanmukha Rao. When the summons sent to the second defendant returned un-served, the petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 r/w 28 C.P.C. praying to amend the name of the second defendant as ‘Sana Malathi Devi’ in stead of ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’, wherever it occurred in the plaint, short cause title, full cause title and other applications like affidavit, address slips etc., In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for amendment, the petitioner had stated that she had filed a suit against defendants 1 and 2 and that the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and that the first defendant himself filed a memo stating that the name of wife (second defendant) is not ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’ and that the summons sent through Court were returned with the endorsement that the name of the second defendant is ‘Sana Malathi Devi’ and not ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’. Contending that she had mentioned the name of the second defendant as ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’ by mistake and that the said mistake was due to inadvertence and not an intentional one, she filed the impugned I.A. seeking amendment of the name of the second defendant as ‘Sana Malathi Devi’. 4. The respondents filed counter and contended that it is not correct to say that the first defendant had mentioned the name of the second defendant wrongly due to inadvertence and that the said mistake was an intentional one. It was also contended that by filing the amendment petition, the petitioner is intending to substitute the person by name ‘Sana Malathi Devi’ in the place of ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’ and that said ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’ is the wife of one Late Kesava Rao and that by such amendment, the scope of the suit will be changed. 5. The Court below, by order dated 17.09.2010, rejected the impugned I.A. holding that there is no proper compliance of Rule 28 of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, which order is impugned herein. 6. The main contention of Sri K.Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application and that the petitioner sought the amendment immediately after the first defendant filed his Memo stating that the name of his wife is ‘Sana Malathi Devi’ and that the Court below ought to have allowed the application. 7. In reply, Smt. Padma, learned counsel for the respondents herein supported the impugned order contending that Rule 28 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice had to be strictly followed and that the petitioner ought to have indicated wherever the amendment is required. She has also reiterated the stand of the respondent, as taken in his counter filed before the Court below. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the amendment sought can be permitted. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed a suit against the first defendant – ‘Sana Shankukha Rao’, who had shown the name of the second defendant as ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’, W/o. Sana Shanmukha Rao’. Admittedly, the first defendant filed a memo stating that the name of his wife is not ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’. It is also not in dispute that the summons sent through Court returned un-served with the endorsement that the name of the second defendant is ‘Sana Malathi Devi’. The petitioner specifically mentioned that due to inadvertence, the name of first defendant’s wife, i.e., the second defendant was mistakenly shown as ‘Sana Sandhya Rani’. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the amendment sought for will change the nature and scope of the suit. As far as compliance of Rule 28 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice is concerned, the petitioner can seek all consequential amendments. It is always better if the required consequential amendments are specifically shown in the petition. However, since the petitioner had specifically mentioned the words ‘wherever it occurred in the plaint, short cause title, full cause title and other applications’ in his affidavit and since the amendment is only with regard to the name of the second defendant, it cannot be said that Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice has been violated. As far as the affidavit is concerned, it is settled legal position that affidavit, once filed, cannot be amended, but in the place of the earlier affidavit, another affidavit can be permitted to be filed. Thus, I am of the view that the Court below ought to have allowed the impugned application in stead of rejecting the same taking a super-technical view. 10. Accordingly, the revision is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, I.A.No.58 of 2009 in O.S.No.23 of 2009 filed before the Court below stands allowed. The Court below may give reasonable time to the petitioner to amend his plaint and to file neat copy of the plaint. No costs. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 01st July, 2011 Bvv