THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5403 OF 2008 DATED: 05.10.2009 Between: Kanchibhotla Venkata Subramanyam .. Petitioner And Kanchibhotla Pavan Kumar .. Respondent ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 20.11.2008 passed in I.A.No.401 of 2008 in O.S.No.272 of 2005 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 are the brothers. Respondent No.2 is the son of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 laid the suit O.S.No.272 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nellore, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, for declaration of his right over the land to an extent of Ac.1.93 cents out of plaint A schedule property, as per family arrangement dated 11.07.1993, for delivery of possession of the said extent to him, for a direction to the defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.35,185/- towards damages with subsequent interest from the date of suit till realization and for mesne profits. During the pendency of the said suit, the present I.A.No.401 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff, the 1st respondent herein, seeking amendment of the plaint for adding the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in plaint Item No.II and direction to the defendants to deliver the same to him. The defendants resisted the petition, by filing counter-affidavit, and it was their case that the property, wherein the petitioner is seeking 1/5th share by way of amendment of the plaint, was gifted to defendant No.1 by his mother under a registered deed and that the petition is filed only to delay the proceedings. The Court below, after a detailed consideration of the matter, allowed the petition on payment of costs of Rs.200/-. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed by the 1st defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the details of the property sought to be included in the schedule of the plaint, by way of amendment of the plaint, are not furnished, that the reasons furnished by the plaintiff for seeking amendment are not valid and the Court below has erroneously allowed the petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned order. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The Court below relied upon a reported decision of this Court, wherein it was held that when the other party can be compensated by way of costs or other proper terms, the amendment ought not to be refused on the sole ground of delay or negligence. The Court below also observed that the proposed amendment no way changes the nature of the suit and cause of action and, after amendment, the defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement to refute the claim of the plaintiff, and, accordingly, allowed the petition on payment of costs. But, it is to be noted that the petition filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff is as vague as it could be. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the details of the property are not furnished and what is the item No.II of the schedule property is also not mentioned. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below ought not to have allowed the present petition and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, the 1st respondent-plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh application, seeking amendment of the plaint as sought in the present I.A., furnishing full and necessary particulars. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 5th October, 2009. IBL