THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1692 of 2011 Date of Order: 24.06.2011 Between: M.Venkata Rama Rajyalakshmi and others ..Petitioners And G.Krishna Murthy and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1692 of 2011 ORDER: - Petitioners/defendants invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, dated 11.03.2011, wherein the learned trial Judge allowed the I.A.No.15 of 2010 in O.S.No.482 of 2003 for amendment of the plaint. Initially, the suit was filed for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of an extent of 17 X 3=51 square yards of site alleging to be occupied by the defendants/petitioners herein, in which an advocate commissioner was appointed and after measuring the plaint schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveryor, when it came to light that the area in occupation of the petitioners is Ac.0-04 cents of land in stead of 51 sq.yds., the respondents/plaintiffs filed the impugned I.A. for amendment of the plaint. In the said I.A., the petitioners/defendants filed counter denying the averments contending that once the trial has already been commenced and when the plaintiff filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination, no amendment can be permitted in the light of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and further the said amendment petition cannot be filed basing upon the report for which the petitioner filed objections. On allowing the said I.A. by the impugned order, the present revision has been filed. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that by ordering the amendment petition, the entire cause of action will be changed and the said amendment cannot be allowed once the trial is commenced and chief- affidavit of the plaintiff has been filed. This Court does not find any substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners since the suit itself is filed for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction alleging that the respondents occupied 51 sq.yds of site, in which an advocate commissioner was appointed and after measurement, it came to the light that more extent of land was in occupation of the petitioners/defendants. Proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI prohibits entertainment of application for amendment after trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties cannot be permitted to raise the matter before the commencement of trial. Admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiffs could not know the correct area, which was in occupation of the defendants, and it came to light only on the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the Court will always have a jurisdiction to entertain such amendment, as the proviso do not altogether oost the jurisdiction of the Court to order amendment. Further, by mere allowing the amendment, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to file an additional written statement denying the averments and can lead evidence in that regard that they are not in occupation of Ac.0-04 cents as alleged in the plaint. If the order is allowed to stand, it will also not attain finality and the same is capable of correction in appeal, if any filed by the petitioners, if the suit is decided against them on the basis of the amendment now carried out. Having regard to the same, no illegality is discernable with the discretion exercised by the lower curt warranting correction in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 24.06.2011 Lmv THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1692 of 2011 Date of Order: 24.06.2011