PUTTA VENKANNA Vs. PUTTA SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of Permanent Injunction, pending suit after long lapse of time filed I.A. No. 339 of 2025 under order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the Survey number in the plaint schedule the same was dismissed by the trial Judge. Challenging the order dtd. 5/8/2025 in I.A. No. 339 of 2025 in O.S. No. 56 of 2012, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The reasons assigned in the affidavit for filing of amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 7 is that old survey number was mistakenly drafted and typed as 221 instead of 222B (222/2) is relevant to the plaint schedule property which is correlates to the present survey number 217/6 and the Tahsildar issued correlation certificate in R.C.No. 173/2025/SA/Dt. 29/4/2025 which reveals the old survey number 222/2 of Gilman Record correlated to the plaint schedule survey number 217/6.

(3.) The learned trial Court Judge has dismissed the I.A. No. 339 of 2025 with an observation of that the petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled for the proposed amendment as prayed in the petition extracting the contention raised by petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge has passed one line order without assigning any reasons while dismissing the application filed for amendment. On this ground alone the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.