MUPPASANI ALLURAMMA Vs. GANPATLA MARIYAMMA DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners were the appellants in A.S. No.25/95 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. They filed IA No.152 of 2000 in the said appeal under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint and alteration of the measurements in the plaint schedule. This application was rejected by the lower appellate court and hence this revision under Art.227 of the Constitution.

(2.) I.A. No.152 of 2000 was filed with an affidavit in support by the 3rd revision petitioner/3rd appellant, pleading that the revision petitioners 1 and 2 had instituted O.S. No.61/88 on the file of the District Munsif, Kavali, against the respondents herein/defendants for declaration of their exclusive right of passage in the suit schedule property and for a consequent permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the site and for restraining them from raising a fallen wall shown as 'AB' in the plaint plan. The 3rd revision petitioner got himself impleaded as the 3rd plaintiff in the suit by way of I.A. No.929 of 2992. The trial court dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 5-6-1995. Aggrieved, the revision petitioners filed A.S. No.25/95.

(3.) According to the revision petitioners, while describing the plaint schedule property, the width and length were not correctly mentioned, as is evident from the sale deed dated 7-2-1960, in favour of the 3rd revision petitioner's father and this error was noticed only when the revision petitioners were getting ready for arguments in the appeal, it was further pleaded in I.A. No. 152 of 2000 that since the revision petitioners 1 and 2 preferred the appeal, the 3rd revision petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the width and length were correctly mentioned in the plaint schedule. Hence the application for amendment of the measurements was filed.