IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1345 OF 2008 Between: Goli Rama Rao ......petitioner AND Chede Annapurnamma and others ......Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1345 OF 2008 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama. His application for amendment of plaint to insert one sentence in para-4 of the plaint was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order, primarily on the ground that the said application is filed after the cross examination of plaintiff is over and that the said proposed amendment would amount to filling up the gaps. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the impugned order that only respondent No.2 is contesting the main suit and respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, who are defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 have remained ex parte. Though respondent Nos.1 to 3 are served notices, there is no appearance entered on their behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that addition of one sentence in the plaint causes no prejudice and would not either change the cause of action nor the nature of the suit and the suit amendment ought to have been allowed by the Court below. The amendment sought for is as follows: “1. In plaint para No.4 at last the following sentences to be inserted “The deceased Chede Gandhi left the property of A.C.0-03 cents of site and a house therein in door No.1-324, Muktyala Road, Jaggaiahpet town and after the death of Gandhi, the said house property is in possession and enjoyment of all the defendants.” It is evident from the said proposed amendment that it is merely clarificatory and it provides particulars and details of the property left by the deceased. It may be that originally these details were not mentioned in the plaint, but the proposed amendment, in my opinion neither changes the nature of the suit nor substitutes the plaint schedule property. Even if amendment is post trial amendment, being merely a clarificatory amendment, the same ought to have been allowed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Court below shall now proceed further in consequent upon the said amendment. The defendant shall have right to file amended written statement, if any, within the time permitted by the Court below and thereafter, the Court below shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law expeditiously, as the suit is of 2006. The trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit preferably at the end of September, 2010. No costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Note: Issue CC of order in three days (B/o) Ivd