THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.3633 of 2009 Date: 10.02.2010 Between: K.Savitramma, Nalgonda District. Petitioner. To Bantu Buchi Babu, Nalgonda District and others. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.3633 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 13.2.2009 passed in I.A.No.608 of 2008 in O.S.No.106 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2001. He filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of Ac.0.24 ½ guntas in Sy.No.46/E. Subsequently, he filed I.A.No.608 of 2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 CPC, seeking for amendment of the suit schedule property to the effect that the suit schedule property is only an extent of Ac.0.09½ guntas. He also seeks amendment of Eastern Boundary as a road. The amendment application has been resisted by the defendants. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record, and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, allowed the application by order dated 13.2.2009. Hence, this revision by the 2nd defendant in the suit. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29.10.2009. Respondent No.1 entered appearance through a counsel. Notice to the other respondents reported to be not necessary. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitoner-2nd defendant submits that the 1st respondent/plaintiff has not assigned any valid reasons for seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property, after nearly seven years of filing of the suit. In a way, his submission is that sufficient reasons have not been given by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in not getting the plaint amended before commencement of the trial Leaned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff submits that by way of amendment, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants and therefore, the trial Court is justified in allowing the application and the same is not required to be interfered by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the petition in the trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint schedule. The amendment sought for is in respect of the extent of the suit schedule property and also with regard to the Eastern Boundary. By way of amendment, the 1st respondent/plaintiff restricted his claim to the extent of Ac.0.09½ guntas instead of Ac.0.24 ½ guntas; and also sought for adding the words “and road” after the Eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property. By way of this amendment, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendant. Added to that, defendants 3 & 4 did not challenge the order. It is only D2, who has assailed the order passed by the trial Court. In the given facts and circumstances, I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner D2 seeks direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Having considered the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitoner-D2, I deem it appropriate to direct the lower Court to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:10.2.2010 mrb