PEDDA SUNKAMMA Vs. C BALASUNKANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in OS No. 60 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, in which a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule properties was passed 10. 10. 2001. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed IA No. 183 of 2002 for final decree by division of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. Pursuant thereto, a Commissioner was appointed and he submitted a report stating that the items 1 and 3 of the B-Schedule cannot be divided into three shares and therefore suggesting to sell the same by public auction. Accordingly, by order dated 6. 10. 2005 the Court below appointed another Commissioner to conduct the auction for sale of items 1 and 3 of Plaint B-schedule Property after making necessary inspection. Having conducted such inspection, the Commissioner submitted a report stating that the boundaries of Item No. l of B-Schedule property did not tally with the boundaries of the property existing on ground.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed I. A. No. 305 of 2007 under Sections 152 and 153 of C. P. C. with a prayer to amend the preliminary decree dated 10. 10. 2001 by substituting the boundaries of Item No. l of B-Schedule Property with that of the boundaries shown in the Commissioner's Report. The said application was opposed by the defendant/respondent herein and after hearing both the parties the Court below by order dated 20. 6. 2008 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the discrepancy in the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule was only on account of a bona fide mistake, vehemently contended that the Court below ought to have ordered the amendment as prayed for in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 152 and 153 of C. P. C.