IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.699 of 2009 Between: Khaja Mazheruddin and 4 others .. Petitioners AND Mareddipally @ Cheela Narsaiah and 6 others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, dated 24-09-2008 in I.A.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.69 of 2006. The petition was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit seeking amendment of the plaint by substituting the description of plaint A- schedule on one side and consequently, substituting the sketch map filed along with the plaint. The plaintiffs contended that in the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land of Ac.2.22 guntas in Sy.No.578 and Ac.1.10 guntas in Sy.No.575 and recovery of possession of Ac.2.08 guntas in Sy.No.575, they had not shown in the boundaries given in the schedule and the sketch map, the land of the 3rd respondent on the east by inadvertence and therefore, they desired to make the proposed amendment to describe the 3rd respondent as the eastern boundary owner in the place of respondents 4 to 6. The application was opposed by defendants 1 and 2/ respondents 1 and 2 contending that the proposed amendment is contrary to the original pleadings and would change the nature of the suit. The trial Court noted the contention of the defendants 1 and 2 that the 3rd respondent is colluding with the plaintiffs and also noted the contention of the 4th respondent about the belated stage at which the proposed amendment changing the nature of the suit and introducing a fresh cause of action, is sought to be introduced. The trial Court in the impugned order noted the claims of the rival parties in the suit and opined that this application was filed when the matter was coming up for settlement of issues and that substituting the name of the 3rd respondent in the place of respondents 4 to 6 would change the nature of the suit and prejudice the defendants, who have already filed their written statements. On that ground, the petition was dismissed. The plaintiffs contended in this revision petition that any pre-trial amendment ought to be liberally allowed, more so, when it is for correction of a misdescription of a suit schedule property, which could have been done at any time to avoid needless complications and multiplicity of proceedings, more so, when the same would not have caused any prejudice to the defendants. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 had respectively opposed and supported the impugned order more or less for similar reasons, while the other respondents did not enter appearance in the revision petition. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel, primarily contended that by no stretch of imagination, a correction of misdescription of the property could have been construed to be changing the nature of the suit. The point for consideration is whether the amendment requested for by the plaintiffs has to be permitted to be made? Insofar as the amendment of pleadings permitted by Order- VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it is well settled that such requests for amendment can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings in an appropriate manner and on appropriate terms as may be considered just, if they are found necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is only by virtue of an amendment in 2002 that a restriction has been incorporated in the statute by a proviso concerning amendments requested after the commencement of trial. The proviso has no application to the present case, the request having been made before the settlement of issues and precedential law is in abundance that such requests insofar as they are permissible should be liberally allowed. It is seen from the plaint in O.S.No.69 of 2006 that the suit for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and recovery of possession of part of the plaint schedule property (plaint B- schedule property) was based on the description of the property as given in the plaint A and B schedules and the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession as of right in pursuance of the title traced in the plaint and also claimed to have been dispossessed illegally from plaint B-schedule land in January, 2006 by defendants 4 to 6. The written statements of the contesting defendants to the contrary claimed the possession of property to be with them under the title claimed by them, while the allegations of the possession and dispossession made by the plaintiffs were denied. The pleadings show that the parties are clear about the property, which is the subject matter of the suit and the existence of the suit survey numbers is not in dispute. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the application that a misdescription occurred in specifying the eastern boundary of the plaint A schedule properties, which is sought to be corrected and how such a correction would amount to a change in the nature of the suit or an introduction of a new cause of action is difficult to comprehend. How any of the contesting respondents are prejudiced by correcting the misdescription is unintelligible and it is always open to the defendants to prove before the Court that either the original description or the corrected description of the properties were such as cannot be acted upon by the Court. Under the circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court that the proposed amendment cannot be permitted cannot be appreciated as justified or reasonable and has to be interfered with. The plaintiffs have to be permitted to make the amendment to comprehensively determine the question in controversy between the parties ultimately in the suit. Hence, he order in I.A.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.69 of 2006 dated 24-09-2008 of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, is set aside and I.A.No.14 of 2007 in O.S.No.69 of 2006 is allowed and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-04-2010 Ksn