IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2112 of 2008 Between: Ladi Satyanarayana ..... Petitioner AND Tenka Ramababu .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Veera Reddy for Sri Aravala Rama Rao Counsel for the respondent: Sri K. Subrahmanyam The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2112 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 24.10.2007 in I.A.No.309 of 2006 in I.A.No.461 of 2001 in O.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.16 of 1998 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.04.1997. In the suit, the petitioner has mentioned the land as falling under Sy.No.406 (old) and Sy.No.1986/P (new). The suit was decreed in the year 2001. I.A.No.461 of 2001 was filed for execution of the said decree. In the meantime, the brother of the respondent filed O.S.No.231 of 2001 claiming right over the property in question. The petitioner was added as defendant No.2 in the said suit. The said suit was dismissed in the year 2005. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that thereafter he came to know that the correct new survey number was 199/17 and not 1986/P and accordingly he filed I.A.No.309 of 2006 under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for carrying out the corrections in the judgment and decree. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.501 of 2007 for appointing Mandal Surveyor to survey the land and demarcate the boundaries. The Court below has allowed the said I.A. and appointed the Mandal Surveyor, who conducted survey on 04.08.2007 and submitted his report on 07.09.2007 and that according to his report, the land falls in Sy.No.199/17. The Court below, after receiving the survey report, however, dismissed I.A.No.309 of 2006 on the reasoning that there is a delay of more than six years in filing the said application. After hearing Sri P. Veera Reddy representing Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that the Court below has committed a serious error in dismissing I.A.No.309 of 2006 on the ground of delay, more so, when it has already entertained I.A.No.501 of 2007 and appointed Mandal Surveyor, who is stated to have submitted his report. If there is a bona fide and genuine mistake in mentioning the survey numbers, the decree holder cannot be denied the benefit of the decree on technical grounds. Instead of dismissing the application on the ground of delay, the Court below ought to have considered and disposed of the same on merits, after considering the objections raised by the respondent. For the abovementioned reasons, Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose of I.A.No.309 of 2006 on merits in accordance with law. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.03.2011 ES