THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.6584 of 2006 Date:27.01.2011 Between: Saripalli Musalayya. ……….. Petitioner/defendant. And Darabala Suryakiran and another. ……. Respondents/plaintiffs. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.6584 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 5.12.2006 passed in I.A.No.454 of 2006 in I.A.No.262 of 2006 in O.S.No.62 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District. The petitioner herein is defendant in the original suit. The respondents filed a suit along with an application in I.A.No.262 of 2006 seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. The respondents contending that they had shown the extent of land Ac.16-75 cents instead of Ac.15-75 cents and that it is purely typographical mistake, sought amendment of the plaint averments. The respondents filed a counter contending that the petitioner ought to have filed the affidavit of the typist, who typed the plaint and that since they already field the written statement, the proposed amendment may cause prejudice to them. It is also their contention that the lower Court ought to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner to survey the land. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable? The lower Court has passed just two lines order is as follows: “Heard both sides. I do not found any tenable ground in the counter and argument of the respondents. Hence the I.A. is allowed.” This type of cryptic order cannot be appreciated. Even while passing orders in interlocutory applications, the Courts must assign reasons and no order can be passed without assigning any valid reasons. However, since it appears to be a typographical mistake, in showing the extent of land, I feel that the amendment sought can be permitted. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner herein has already filed the written statement before the respondents herein sought amendment, it is made clear that the petitioner may file additional written statement, however, after seeking permission of the court below. Subject to the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:27.01.2011 mrb