THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P. NO.3508 of 2009 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the orders dated 16.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.391 of 2008 in O.S.No.60 of 2005 on the file of the court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. requesting the court to permit the petitioner/Plaintiff to amend the plaint schedule property on the Southern side as 271/6 by deleting 271/4 was dismissed. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner who is the Plaintiff approached the court below and filed the said suit for declaration of his title and consequential possession of the suit schedule property. At a stage when the said suit was ripe for trial, the said application seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property was filed and as stated supra, the same was dismissed. 3 Heard both sides. 4 It is true that prior to the amendment of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., an application seeking amendment of the plaint can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. But after the amendment and inclusion of a proviso to the said section, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. 5 From the record it is apparent that the suit is ripe for trial but the trial has not begun. Hence this court is of the view that the said proviso added to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. has no application in this matter. No doubt, the petitioner is not diligent in mentioning the correct schedule of the properties while drafting the plaint. Further, it is also true that when he filed an application to bring the legal representatives on record, the said application was allowed and at that stage also the petitioner has not taken steps to bring to the notice of the court with regard to the present amendment. But in my considered view, these laches shall not go to the root of the case i.e. rejecting the said application intoto. Apparently, the suit is one for declaration of title and the same shall be decided only on the basis of the plaint schedule where the boundaries, survey numbers etc., are mentioned. When the case of the petitioner / Plaintiff is to the effect that the suit schedule lands are located in Sy.No.271/6 but not in Sy.No.271/4, in my considered view, the same shall be considered, so that, the court would determine the suit in a correct manner. But for the laches, as already observed, the petitioner shall be penalized. 5 Accordingly, this revision is allowed, the order dated 16.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.391 of 2008 in O.S.No.60 of 2005 on the file of the court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet is hereby set aside, however, on condition of the petitioner depositing of costs for an amount of Rs.2,000/- into the District Legal Services Authority at Mahabubnagar, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After ascertaining the fact that the petitioner has deposited the said amount within the time so stipulated above, the court below shall permit the petitioner to amend the plaint and if required give an opportunity to the defendant to file an additional written statement and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------------- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. 06-09-2010 Kvsn