AYESHA RIZWANA Vs. MUSHTAQ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 4163 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent herein is the defendant. The suit is filed for eviction and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. By the order under revision IA No. 951 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the boundaries of the suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, this revision petition by the plaintiff.

(2.) It is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit boundaries were wrongly mentioned in the plaint only on account of a mistake on the part of the Counsel for the plaintiff and by rectifying the said mistake no prejudice would be caused to the defendant and therefore the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application. In support of his submission the learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Usha Devi v. Rizwan Ahmad and others, 2008 AIR(SC) 1147

(3.) On the other hand it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since the trial has already commenced, the Court below is justified in dismissing the application for amendment.