IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH (4TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.258 of 2008 Between: Mohd.Hasham Qureshi & others … Petitioners And: A.P. State Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.258 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 14.12.2007 in IA No.577 of 2007 in OS No.3 of 2003 on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioners herein under order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the name of the Dargah, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit against the respondents/ defendants for declaration that they are lawful occupants of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment in pursuance to the memo dated 20.11.2002. The respondents filed written statement, contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the suit is stated to be pending for trial. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed IA No.577 of 2007 for amendment of the plaint for describing the institution from ‘Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba’ situated at Edi Bazar, Hyderabad to its correct name ‘Grave yard & Masjid, presently known as Masjid-e- Qutub Shahi @ Masjid-e-Farooqe-Azam near Dargah Hazrath Zohra Bee Saheba’, situated at Kumarwadi, outside Katta Talab Mir Jumla (Edi Bazar), Hyderabad. According to the petitioners, the institution is described by its name as proposed in the amendment in Muntakhab No.2410/2 of 1350 Fasli, which is already filed before the Court and also in the Surveyor’s report and Gazette Notification. According to the petitioners, the name of the institution was incorrectly mentioned in the original plaint by mistake as ‘Dargah Zohra Bee Saheba’. 4. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal observing that new legal person is sought to be substituted in the place of original legal person. It is to be noted that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit nor cause of action nor institution against which the reliefs are sought for in the original plaint. The proposed amendment only seeks to describe the said institution by a different name which according to the plaintiffs is the correct name and there is no change of institution nor is the relief claimed against any different institution, inasmuch as, the institution against which the reliefs are claimed remains the same even after amendment. As the amendment sought is only to describe the name of the institution differently, it is held that the petitioners can be permitted to amend the plaint as proposed, as the same does not cause any prejudice to the contentions of the defendants. The impugned order, dismissing the application is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. It is open to the respondents/defendants to file additional written statement in response to the proposed amendment. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 04.11.2011 bss