HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1472 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the dismissal of I.A.No.2061 of 2009 in O.S.No.71 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, dated 09.02.2010. The petitioner/4th defendant sought for amendment of the written statement seeking to substitute the words ‘the suit schedule property’ with the words ‘total area of Acs.2.00 in Sy.Nos.30/77/2 and 30/77/3 part of suit schedule ‘B’ property’ and also amplifying the amended plea with some other additions to the original written statement. His claim is that he got himself impleaded in the suit after coming to know about the first respondent/plaintiff seeking to have his title declared in respect of the suit property and to have a permanent injunction against respondents1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3. He had earlier filed O.S.No.62 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of Acs.2.00 in Sy.Nos.30/77/2 and 30/77/3 with specified boundaries. The suit was renumbered as O.S.No.166 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, but in the written statement in the present suit, he referred to the suit schedule property by inadvertence and did not specify the property claimed in the other suit. The mistake was noticed while preparing an affidavit for his chief-examination, which may be allowed to be corrected. This request was opposed by the plaintiff contending that the proposed amendment is not permissible when he was cross- examined by the defendants on the basis of the original pleadings and the amendment is prohibited by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure after commencement of the trial. The 4th defendant was not diligent and could have noticed any mistake if he had exercised some diligence. Hence, he desired the petition to be negatived. The trial Court in the order impugned on referring to the respective contentions, opined that the suit is at the stage of recording the evidence for the defendants after the examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 was over and the cross-examination of P.W.1 was observed to be stressing upon the right of the 4th defendant on part of plaint “B” schedule property. The pleadings of the parties were referred to by the trial Court, which considered that the request for amendment at the belated stage will lead to confusion by introducing a new case and also compelling the plaintiff to reopen his evidence. Consequently, this petition was dismissed with costs. The 4th defendant approached this Court with this revision contending that a bonafide mistake committed by oversight could have been permitted to be corrected and in fact, not distinguishing the survey numbers will cause confusion and prejudice and not otherwise. The plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice by the clarification of survey numbers and mere delay cannot be a ground for refusal of the request. Heard Sri B. Nalinkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri A. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff. No notice is served on respondents 2 to 3, who are co- defendants and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that they are not necessary parties to this revision. The point for consideration is whether the proposed amendment has to be permitted to be made in the interest of justice. It is seen from the material papers on record that in O.S.No.166 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, the 4th defendant herein sued the plaintiff herein and others in respect of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.30/77/2 and Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.30/77/3 of Osman Nagar village, for declaration of ownership and possession and consequential permanent injunction and also cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by the second defendant therein in favour of the first defendant therein (plaintiff herein). The suit is contested by the plaintiff herein and is pending and the copy of the written statement filed by him in that suit would show that he is laying his claim to the land claimed in the present suit, over which, the 4th defendant is claimed to be seeking rights under the guise of the allegations made in his plaint. The present suit is in respect of Acs.3.00 in Sy.No.30/36 and Acs.2.39 gts in Sy.No.30/39 of Osman Nagar village and resistance to the suit claim by the 4th defendant is obviously for the same reasons claimed in the plaint in O.S.No.166 of 2008. Though the original written statement referred to the disputed lands as suit schedule property, the very nature of the dispute, therefore, would require clarity in the 4th defendant’s evidence about the survey numbers of the land, which he is claiming. Sri B. Nalinkumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, produced a copy of the deposition of P.W.1 recorded in the suit to illustrate that though the survey numbers are sought to be specified in the written statement, now, they were, in fact, put to P.W.1 during his cross-examination while suggesting to him the basis for the claim of the 4th defendant on the same lines as claimed in O.S.No.166 of 2008 and the learned counsel submitted that the same was the tenor of the cross-examination of P.Ws. 2 to 4 also in the suit which claim appears probable in the light of the style of cross-examination of P.W.1. If so, though the 4th defendant cannot be considered positively diligent in rectifying the incorrectness or omission in the written statement till now, it is clear that he was putting forward the same defence against the plaintiff in respect of the disputed land throughout, due to which, the plaintiff cannot be considered to have been taken by surprise by the amendment proposed to be made. It is true that the trial of the suit had commenced and the evidence of and for the plaintiff was over and the prohibition under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure comes into operation making the Court to consider any request for amendment only if it comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised it before the commencement of the trial. However, the said restriction was understood to be directory and not mandatory in nature and in appropriate cases, in order to have comprehensive pleadings before the Court necessary for the purpose of identifying and determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, such an amendment may be allowed taking a liberal view of the matter. Rules of procedure are intended to advance the substantial cause of justice and not to operate as penal provisions in respect of any technical lapses of the parties. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case referred to above, this is a fit case where the Court has to permit the amendment to be made in the interest of justice subject of course to appropriate terms to compensate the opposite side for the inconvenience caused due to the delay in making a request. Sri A. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, requested for permission to the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement in case of the amendment being allowed. It is needless to state that it is the natural right of the plaintiff to file such a rejoinder, if the amendment is to be allowed. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.2061 of 2009 in O.S.No.71 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy dated 09.02.2010, is set aside, and the said I.A. will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-to the plaintiff and on deposit of further costs of Rs.2,000/-to the credit of the District Legal Services Authority, Medak at Sangareddy, within 10 days from the date of communication of this order to the trial Court; in default, the petition stands dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30.06.2010 sj