HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2059 of 2011 Date: September 23, 2011 Between: 1. P. Laxma Reddy, died per LRs 2. P. Rukkamma 3. P. Balamani … Petitioners/ Plaintiffs And 1. G. Bhujendar Reddy & 2 others. …Respondents/ Defendants * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2059 of 2011 O R D E R: The plaintiffs in O.S. No.176 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy filed I.A. No.1264 of 2010 therein seeking amendment of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the plaint. By order dated 28.3.2011, the trial court dismissed the application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The suit, O.S. No.176 of 2003, was filed for a perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule open land in House No.11-27 at Chimnapur, hamlet of Kandi village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint therein, whereby they wished to introduce pleadings to the effect that defendants 1 and 2 had encroached upon the public road and that such encroachment was liable to be removed by way of a mandatory injunction. 3. Pertinent to note, the plaintiffs earlier filed I.A. No.272 of 2009 in the suit to amend their plaint by including a prayer for grant of a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the illegal construction raised by them over the Gram Panchayat road (compound wall). The said I.A. was admittedly allowed on 03.5.2010. The present I.A. only sought to introduce factual averments and requisite pleadings in support of the prayer for a mandatory injunction, which was already permitted to be included in the suit prayer by the trial court. In the absence of these pleadings, the plaintiffs would be adversely affected in so far as this amended prayer is concerned. The hyper-technical approach adopted by the trial court basing upon Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice cannot be countenanced. Procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of law. There was no doubt a lapse on the part of the plaintiffs in seeking a comprehensive amendment in the earlier I.A. itself, but such failure cannot lead to the automatic dismissal of the present I.A. All the more so, when the issue involved encroachment of a public road. 4. The order of the trial court dismissing the I.A. is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial court shall permit the plaintiffs to effect necessary amendments to the plaint as sought by them in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: September 23, 2011. BSB