THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1646 OF 2010 Dated: 17.09.2010 Between: B.Subhan ..... PETITIONER AND Batti Haroon .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1646 OF 2010 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.47 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The suit is filed for partition claiming half share in the suit schedule property. The defendant/respondent herein filed a written statement stating that though the suit property was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant, subsequently in the year 2004 the plaintiff had sold his share to the defendant for a valuable consideration. Subsequently, the defendant filed I.A.No.256 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. pleading that the plaintiff had gifted his half share orally and seeking permission to amend para No.3 of the written statement by substituting the earlier plea that the half share was sold by the plaintiff. Though the said application was opposed by the plaintiff, the Court below by order dated 20.10.2009 allowed I.A.No.256 of 2009 and the said order has become final. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.52 of 2010 on 08.03.2010, alleging that the amendments carried out in the written statement were not in accordance with the permission granted by this Court and therefore, the same amounted to tampering the Court record. Thus, the plaintiff prayed not to consider the amended written statement. On the same day, the defendant filed I.A.No.59 of 2010 stating that by mistake in I.A.No.256 of 2009 it was mentioned that para No.3 of the written statement may be permitted to be amended instead of para No.4 and accordingly, requesting the Court to amend para No.4 of the written statement. The said application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was allowed by the Court below by order dated 26.03.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. As could be seen, while seeking amendment it was specifically pleaded by the defendant that the half share of the plaintiff was gifted to him orally and permission was sought to substitute the said plea instead of sale pleaded initially in the written statement. However, in the prayer instead of seeking amendment to para No.4, it was mentioned as para No.3. As observed by the Court below it appears to be an inadvertent mistake since the plea of sale of half share was mentioned in para No.4 of the written statement but not in para No.3. As a matter of fact, para No.3 contained only four lines and therefore, the question of making corrections from 8th to 17th lines as mentioned in the prayer in I.A.No.256 of 2009 did not arise at all. Hence, the Court below thought it fit to set right the record and accordingly, I.A.No.59 of 2010 was ordered to enable the defendant to rectify the mistakes. As the plaintiff allowed the order dated 20.10.2009 to become final, it is not open to him to oppose the amendment on merits. As no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff by allowing the amendment, the Court below had rightly allowed I.A.No.59 of 2010. Therefore, the order under revision does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ Date: 17.09.2010 G. ROHINI, J