THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Civil Revision Petition Nos. 6275 and 6277 of 2009 Common Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revision petitions and Sri N.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondents. Both these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution are against the order dated 6-11-2009 in I.A.Nos. 1178 and 1179 of 2009 in O.S.Nos. 260 of 1998 and 6 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. The suit O.S.No. 260 of 2998 is filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction and O.S.No. 6 of 2003 for recovery of damages for the year 1999-2000 against common defendants who are respondents in these revisions. The 1st defendant was described in the plaint as Makkena Poornamma alias Annapoornamma and the 3rd defendant as Makkena Somaiah. The 2nd defendant died pending O.S.No. 260 of 1998. On 30-10-1998 the defendants filed a Memo in O.S.No. 260 of 1998 stating that the names of defendants 1 and 3 are not correctly described and the matter was posted to 20-11-1998 for steps for enabling the revision petitioner-plaintiff to amend the cause title. On 20-11-1998 the counsel for the plaintiff reported that no steps are necessary to be taken for the amendment of the names of defendants 1 and 3. Thereafter the matter was posted for written statements of defendants 1 and 3 and the matter proceeded to trial. In 2009 the plaintiff-revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 1178 in O.S.No. 260 of 1998 and 1179 of 2009 in O.S.No. 6 of 2003 (both the suits were clubbed and evidence was recorded in O.S.No. 260 of 1998 at the trial) under order 6 Rule 17 to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to amend the plaint in so far as the names of defendants 1 and 3 are concerned. The court below, by two orders impugned herein dated 6- 11-2009 in the respective suits, dismissed I.A.Nos. 1178 and 1179 of 2009 in O.S.Nos. 260 of 1998 and 6 of 2003 respectively by holding and rightly that the applications are filed belatedly and after an inordinate delay of nearly 11 years from the time when the mistake in the description of the defendants was pointed out by filing of the Memo dated 30-10-1998 in O.S.No. 260 of 1998 with no satisfactory explanation for the said inordinate delay. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that though the petitioner’s conduct is unjustifiable, she should be permitted to pursue the suits on merit without bringing about the situation of the suits getting dismissed for incorrect description of the defendants, particularly as valuable property rights are involved. Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the defendants would strenuously contend that the orders under review are impeccable and warrant no interference, as the revision petitioner had exhibited callous and grossly negligent conduct in failing to take adequate and timely steps for amendment of the cause titles in the suits, despite being put on notice of the error in the description of the parties, at the earliest stage in 1998. Sri M.S.N. Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the court may grant indulgence to enable the revision petitioner to pursue the suits on merits and that the petitioners are willing to abide by any terms that may be imposed by this Court, proportionate to the gross negligence of the revision petitioner in taking timely and expeditious steps for filing applications for amendment of the cause title in the suits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court considers it appropriate, having regard to the inordinate and unexplained delay and negligence on the part of the revision petitioners in taking steps to amend the cause title pertaining to the defendants despite having notice of the error in the description of the defendants 1 and 3 as early as in October, 1998, that the ends of justice are served if the petitioner is granted relief on condition of paying costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousands) in each revision to the common respondents- defendants in O.S.Nos. 260 of 1998 and 6 of 2003 for allowing I.A.Nos. 1178 and 1179 of 2009 in the respective suits, within thirty days from today. The revision petitioners shall make out a demand draft or cheque for Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousands) each in favour of Makkena Poornamma @ Annapoornamma and Makkena Swamulu and shall tender it to the defendants who shall pass acknowledgment of receipt, within thirty days from today. On such tendering of the amounts stipulated above to the respondents and on the petitioner producing the acknowledgments before the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, I.A.Nos. 1178 and 1179 of 2009 in O.S.Nos. 260 of 2998 and 6 of2003 shall be deemed to have been allowed. In default by the petitioners in complying with the condition stipulated herein, the revisions shall stand dismissed. The revision petitions are disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 26th March, 2010. GRR