IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 580 OF 2007 Between: Chitikela Nookaraju. … Petitioner And Chitikela Byragi and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.580 of 2007 ORDER:- Petitioner/plaintiff is in revision against the order dated 16.09.2006 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Tuni in dismissing I.A.No.700 of 2006 in O.S.No.517 of 2005, filed for amendment of the plaint schedule. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and along with the plaint no schedule as such was filed to substantiate the averment made in the plaint. Later he filed the impugned I.A. stating that at the time of drafting the plaint he has given the sale deed to his Advocate, who got prepared the plaint and schedule and as per the same, southern boundary is belonged to Chitikela Ramayyamma, W/o.Rajulu. At the time of drafting the sale deed, dated 06.10.1999 by mistake the southern boundary was wrongly noted as house of Mirapakayala Narayana Murthy. Subsequently after noticing the said mistake, a rectification deed was obtained on 30.08.2005 and in that rectification the southern boundary was correctly noted as ‘site of Chitikela Ramayyamma’ and the eastern boundary was wrongly mentioned by type mistake as Bodikela Apparao’s house and the correct boundary is Chitikela Apparao’s house. Since the plaint was drafted on the basis of the earlier sale deed dated 06.10.1999, the southern boundary was noted as house of Mirapakayala Narayana Murthy and the same was noted in the plaint also and as he has not given the rectification deed dated 30.08.2005, the plaint schedule may be amended. Respondent opposed the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff contending that the petitioner suppressing the material facts and misleading the Court, obtained ex parte injunction order and to continue the said injunction, the present application is filed. The schedule itself is self contradictory to the earlier document, rectification deed, lawyer notice and plaint schedule. The trial Court rightly dismissed the same on the ground that when the plaint schedule is not filed along with plaint but was filed in the interim injunction petition, unless the schedule is filed along with the plaint with necessary pleadings to that effect, the present rectification cannot be ordered and that too substituting a schedule when there is no original schedule filed along with the plaint, amendment of schedule does not arise. It is not disputed that in the plaint or in the lawyer notice, there is no mention about the obtaining of rectification deed and when the same does not form part of the plaint, amendment of non-existing schedule does not arise. No illegality or infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the trial Court, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 16th April 2010 lmv