HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4888 OF 2007 DATE:16-11-2010 BETWEEN Battina Venugopala Rao …Petitioner AND Gandikota Ramaiah & Others …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4888 OF 2007 ORDER: Plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.233 of 2006 for recovery of money based on the mortgage deed dated 3.4.2000, but actually, according to the plaintiff-petitioner, it was held on 3.4.2001 and registered on the same day. On coming to know the mistake crept in the mortgage deed in the date column, which was typed as 3.4.2000, the petitioner filed I.A.No.174 of 2006 to correct the ate of mortgage as 3.4.2001 instead of 3.4.2000. On dismissal of the same by the trial Court on 25.10.2007, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of constitution of India to revise the said order. Notice sent to second respondent was returned unserved though her husband-first respondent and sons were already served with the same address. The trial judge has not assigned any reasons and simply dismissed the I.A. as “Heard both sides petition dismissed”. Time and again, this Court deprecated the practice in dismissing the I.As. with unreasoned orders. In spite of the same, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge failed to assign the reasons while dismissing the application. It is now settled that the document executed need not be registered on the same day and it can be registered subsequent to the date of execution. The petitioner got issued a notice on 23.3.2005 contending that he lent the amount on 3.4.2000 and he also mentioned the same in the plaint and that in the affidavit filed in lieu of chief- examination he contended that he lent the amount only on 3.4.2000. Therefore, at this stage, petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the plaint by amending the date of mortgage deed as 3.4.2001 contrary to the pleadings and the suit notice issued by him. In view of the same, the dismissal of the impugned I.A. by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Tsr.