1 APHC010319932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1663/2024 Between: Vangara Srinivasa Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Devulapalli Venkateswara Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V N CHAKRAPANI The Court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the decree and order dated 19.04.2024 in I.A.No.23 of 2024 in O.S.No.139/2019 on the file of the Court of the learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondent is the defendant. The plaintiffs filed suit vide O.S.No.139/2019 seeking permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs got filed I.A.No.23 of 2024 under Order 6 2 Rule 17 to amend the plaint schedule and plaint plan. The respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioners have filed the said amendment petition after lapse of 4 years of filing the suit only to drag on the suit proceedings without standing for cross-examination and that the amendment made in the schedule attached to the petition is not in accordance with the contentions raised in the affidavit. After hearing both the parties, the court below held that already trail was commenced on 21.03.2022 and chief affidavit of P.W.1 was filed and coming for marking of documents. It was further held by the court below that plaint schedule consists of six items and also B- schedule and how the plaintiff kept quiet for four years without looking into the plaint A-Schedule and B-Schedule, as such dismissed the petition under its order dated 19.04.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.N.Chakrapani, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application contended that, at the time of filing the suit, due to typographical mistake, suit schedule was wrongly mentioned and after noticing the said mistake and before commencement of trial, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.23 of 2024 for amending the plaint schedule and plaint plan but the court below the dismissed the said application on the ground that trail 3 was already commenced and the petitioners have filed the amendment petition after lapse of 4 years of filing the suit only to drag on the suit proceedings. He further submitted that, the court below has failed to see that, except filing the chief affidavit, no documents were marked in order to cross- examine the P.W.1. The court below had failed to observe that, if the amendment petition is allowed, the nature of the suit will not be changed and if the same is not allowed, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated. He further submitted, unless some prejudice will be caused to respondent which cannot be compensated in terms of costs, the application cannot be dismissed but the court below has failed to appreciate that fact, however, in the present case, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the amendment petition is allowed. As such, prayed to allow the present civil revision petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent justified the orders of the trail court contending that the plaintiffs should be more diligent while filing suit and suit schedule properties before court below and the court below has rightly dismissed the application by giving cogent reasons. He further submitted that, if at all this court has intention to consider the amendment petition, a liberty may be given to the respondent/defendant to file additional written statement. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 4 7. A perusal of the record would indicate that, as the plaintiffs have found some typographical errors in the suit schedule properties, they have filed an interlocutory application for amending the plaint schedule and plaint plan which was dismissed by the court below on the ground that trail was already commenced and the petitioners have filed the amendment petition after lapse of 4 years of filing the suit only to drag on the suit proceedings. Admittedly the petitioners/plaintiffs are claiming the right and title over the property by virtue of the registered sale deeds wherein boundaries were mentioned and sought permanent injunction by filing a suit. Also, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property or with the survey number. Courts generally allow amendments to schedule property to ensure the real question in controversy is decided, provided it doesn't fundamentally change the lawsuit. A delay in filing the amendment application is not a sole ground for rejection if the amendment is essential for a just decision. However, in the present case, change in the plaint schedule properties and plaint plan, as sought by the petitioners, would not alter the nature of the suit, as such the amendment petition can be allowed. As could be seen from the record, the trail has not commenced and only a chief affidavit was filed. Even otherwise, the real question of controversy between the parties would be determined if the amendment petition is allowed and also multifarious litigation would be avoided. 5 In view of the same, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 19.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.23 of 2024 is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.23 of 2024 is allowed. However, the respondent/defendant is at liberty to filed additional written statement, if so advised, in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS