THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2192 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07.04.2011, in I.A.No.150 of 2011 in O.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, wherein the said application ﬁled by the petitioners herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint schedule by correcting the boundaries on the South, East and West of item No.2 of the plaint ‘B’ schedule, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein ﬁled the suit for speciﬁc performance of the suit agreement of sale in respect of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. ‘A’ schedule comprises Ac.1.21 guntas in Sy.No.493/2. Item No.1 of the ‘B’ schedule is an extent of Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy.No.493/2 and Item No.2 of the ‘B’ schedule is an extent of Ac.0.29 guntas in Sy.No.493/2. All situate in Adloor village. The suit agreement of sale does not contain any boundaries. According to the plaintiﬀs, while drafting the original plaint, by mistake and inadvertence, the boundaries of item No.2 of ‘B’ schedule, particularly South, East and West boundaries were incorrectly noted as land in Sy.No.501; 100 ft. vide Rangareddy road and neighbour’s land respectively. According to the plaintiﬀs, the correct boundaries are: South: land of Kunta Potchaiah; East: agricultural land of Permandla Laxmi and West:Rangareddy road 100 ft. Insofar as the road is concerned, instead of showing the road on the West, it was shown on the East in the original plaint schedule. Regarding southern boundary, plaintiﬀs now seek to mention the name of the owner of the land as ‘Kunta Potchaiah’. The correction of the boundaries in item No.2 of the plaint ‘B’ schedule, as proposed, does not alter the nature of the suit or the cause of action as the suit remains the same i.e. for speciﬁc performance in respect of ‘A’ and ‘B schedule properties. The proposed amendment, correcting the boundaries, would not also cause any prejudice to the contention of the defendants. Admittedly, it is for the plaintiﬀs to establish the identity of the property and also their entitlement for speciﬁc performance based on the suit agreement. The impugned order, dismissing the application on the ground that the proposed amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit, is misconceived. As the petitioners- plaintiﬀs are merely seeking correction of the boundaries in respect of the same land, which is mentioned in the original plaint schedule and in respect of which the suit agreement of sale is said to have been executed, it is considered that in the interest of justice and for eﬀective adjudication of the dispute, pertaining to the real subject-matter of the suit, petitioners can be permitted to amend the plaint schedule as proposed. It is open to the defendants to ﬁle additional written statement in response to the proposed amendment. The impugned order, dismissing the application, is therefore held liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 4. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 16th November, 2011. Tsy