APHC010491572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Seventh day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2537 of 2025 Between: Smt. Medikundam Usha ...Petitioner and Kalapatapu Venkata Subramanya Sarma and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Varun Byreddy Counsel for the respondents: Nil The Court made the following Order: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 16.07.2025 dismissing I.A.No.77 of 2025 in I.A.No.63 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool filed under sections 152 and 153 r/w Sec.151 CPC to permit the petitioners / plaintiffs to amend the plaint and consequently amend the preliminary decree dated 31.01.2022 as follows: 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2537 of 2025 SCHEDULE In respect of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule: Delete : Sy.No.371 Add : Sy.No.371/1. In respect of Item No.5 of the plaint schedule: Delete : Sy.No.318/1 Add : Sy.No.318/3. In respect of Item No.9 of the plaint schedule Delete : Sy.No.231/2C. Add : Sy.No.321/2C. 2. The revision petitioners filed the suit seeking partition of as many as 17 items of properties. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendants No.1 and 2 and the father of the defendants No.3 and 4. The suit was initially filed against the defendants Nos.1 to 4. The defendants No.1,3 and 4 filed written statement supporting the plaintiffs’ claims. But, the defendant No.2 filed written statement stating that some of the items in the plaint schedule were purchased by him and the defendant No.1 with own funds and the marriages of the plaintiffs were performed by selling certain properties of the joint family. After the alienation made by the defendant No.2 pending the suit, the other defendants Nos.5 to 9 were added. After the trial, the suit was decreed on 31.01.2022. Therefore, I.A.No.63 of 2023 was filed for passing a final decree. 3. According to the petitioners, while survey was being conducted in the proceedings in I.A.No.63 of 2023, the parties noticed the errors mentioned above in the survey numbers shown in the plaint schedule which were incorporated also in the 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2537 of 2025 preliminary decree and that such errors are inadvertent and therefore, the amendments are necessary to give effect to the preliminary decree by passing a final decree. 4. The respondents / defendants Nos.1 to 4 remained exparte. The trial Court heard the learned counsels for the petitioners / plaintiffs and the respondents / defendants Nos.5 to 9. No respondent has filed any counter opposing the petition. However, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that except the oral allegation that there are errors in the preliminary decree and there was no documentary evidence to show that the land in the proposed survey numbers belongs to the petitioners / plaintiffs seeking partition and that though no respondent raised objection it is for the petitioners to file documentary proof in support of their contention and in the absence of such evidence, it is not just and proper to grant the relief and that long time lapsed since passing of the preliminary decree also. The trial Court further observed that this application filed after the survey of the petition schedule properties with the advocate commissioner with the help of mandal surveyor and then only these discrepancies were brought to the notice of the parties. The trial Court declined to follow the preposition of law in the case reported in Pinipe Mallamma and others Vs.Kunche Chinna Mangamma and others1 without assigning any reason. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 1 2002(1)AnWR45 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2537 of 2025 5. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition though no respondent has raised any objection and the defendants in the survey numbers were noticed during the survey held by the commissioner with the help of surveyor and that there is no change in the boundaries and as such there is no problem in identifying the properties. He further placed reliance on the same decision of this High Court which was referred before the trial Court. In the said decision, under the facts similar to the case on hand, this Court held that survey number of the land shown in the plaint schedule can be amended and the consequential preliminary decree can also be amended by exercising the jurisdiction under section 152 C.P.C, so long as there is no change in the change in the boundaries of the land. As can be seen from the amendment sought, the errors mentioned in the survey numbers appear to be accidental and inadvertent rather than deliberate. It is settled law that the boundaries prevail over the survey numbers and extent of land, if the extent is minimal. Therefore, in the present case the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that there is no document filed. Since there is no dispute as to identity of land within the boundaries mentioned in the preliminary decree which corresponds to the plaint schedule and moreover no respondent has raised any objection, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.77 of 2025 in I.A.No.63 of 2023 in O.S.No.137 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2537 of 2025 Kurnool is set aside and I.A.No.77 of 2025 is allowed as prayed for. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. _____________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date:07.10.2025 GRL 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No. 2537 of 2025 114 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI C.R.P No.2537 of 2025 Date: 07.10.2025 GRL