HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3644 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to revise the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda passed in I.A.No.624 of 2009 in O.S.No.270 of 2000, dated 08.07.2009, in dismissing the I.A. filed for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property admeasuring an extent of Acs.0-65 cents+ Acs.0-65 cents=Ac.1-30 cents in R.S.No.3/A of dry land situated in Puligadda village, within the limits of Avanigadda Sub-Registry in Krishna District with specified boundaries in the schedule. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were the sisters and they are the daughters of Mandali Venkata Subbaiah and Subbamma of Puligadda Village of Avanigadda Mandal. The plaintiffs’ mother owns and possesses an extent of Acs.1-75 cents of dry land in R.S.No.3/A of Puligadda village and some other properties. Plaintiffs’ mother got purchased the above said properties and some other properties under a registered sale deed in the year 1941 from Ponnapalli Dhakshina Murthy and since then she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said properties. In the chief-examination affidavit of plaintiff No.1, it is stated that Acs.1-75 cents of dry land in R.S.No.3/A of Avanigadda village of Avanigadda Mandal and some other properties were purchased by their mother in the year 1941 from Ponnapalli Dhakshina Murthy and since then she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment. Due to love and affection, she executed a registered gift deed of Acs.0-65 cents of dry land in favour of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 11.02.1997 and since then they are in possession of the said property. It is noticed that in stead of Avanigadda, it is mentioned as Puligadda in paras 3, 4 and 8A of the plaint. The present I.A. is filed seeking amendment of the word ‘Avanigadda’ in place of ‘Puligadda’, which is a typographical error and which is noticed at the time of preparation for arguments and the same is to be amended. The lower court dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the suit is of the year 2000 and is an identified matter; that the plaintiffs earlier sought amendment of the plaint; that the petition is filed at the fag end of the matter, when it is about to be posted for judgment; that the amendment sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs is not such that they could not have sought at an earlier point of time with an ordinary diligence; and that they are not entitled to the proposed amendment and accordingly, dismissed the I.A. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire record. In spite of service of notice on respondent No.2, he has not put up any appearance, whereas the learned counsel for respondent No.1, is absent. In the entire plea taken it was stated that the plaintiffs’ mother purchased the properties under registered sale deed for Acs.1-75 cents of dry land in R.S.No.3/A from one Ponnapalli Dakshina Murthy and since then she was in possession and enjoyment and that she executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The said documents were filed along with the plaint, wherein the gift deed of the property shows that the property was situated at Avanigadda village. Therefore, mentioning of the word ‘Puligadda’ village instead of ‘Avanigadda’ village is only a typographical mistake, which can be corrected at any time. Neither the cause of action changes nor any inconsistent pleas were pleaded by the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the lower court failed to exercise the jurisdiction in ordering the amendment. If the same is not rectified, it is not capable for correction at a later point of time. Therefore, the same has to be corrected in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the I.A. is allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A. Gopal Reddy, J. March 18, 2011 lmv. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3644 OF 2009 18.03.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3644 of 2009 Date of Order:18.03.2011 Between: P.Sowbhagyam and another ..Petitioners and Mandali Nageswara Rao and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: