IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3322 OF 2009 Between : Allena Raghavam .... PETITIONER A N D Kaldari Umamaheswar Rao and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3322 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 01.05.2009, in I.A.No.154 of 2008 in O.S.No.37 of 2004 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Rajam, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to amend the plaint schedule and plan by substituting the width of western wall as 15 feet and its length as 25 feet 6 inches in place of 14 feet and 20 feet respectively, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that by allowing the amendment, it would not change the cause of action or nature of suit, but only the correct length and width of the wall would be mentioned; and that if the petitioner establishes his case with reference to the title deeds, the relief sought for as amended can be granted which will resolve the disputes between the parties once for all and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has to establish his case by oral and documentary evidence; and that the measurements of the wall is exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner and he has not come to the Court at the earliest point of time with regard to the correct measurements of disputed wall; and that the proposed amendment sought for is based upon the commissioner’s report. 4. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. reads as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that 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 the commencement of trial.” The object of the above provision is that the Courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and should consequently all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. In view of the amendment, amendment pleadings is not routine. 5. The amendment can be allowed, provided the issue involved in the suit can be settled once for all between the parties and effective decree can be passed by virtue of this amendment. The provision for amendment of pleadings are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. 6. The petitioner seeks to amend the length and width of the disputed wall on western side. The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he has got right, title and interest for the entire extent of the plaint schedule land. At this stage, the same cannot be decided. If the correct measurements of schedule property are not shown, an effective decree cannot be passed if plaintiff established his case. By allowing the proposed amendment, it would not cause any prejudice to the case of defendant. It will not in any manner change the structure of the suit. It is only the amendment with regard to one of the dimensions of the petition schedule property. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition in view of the fact that the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.154 of 2008 is allowed. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2004, both parties shall cooperate for the disposal of the suit and the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that after the amendment, the defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J NOVEMBER 24, 2010. YVL