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 dated 05.08.2025 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. 29.04.2025 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.

4. The said order dated 05.08.2025 in I.A. No. 339 of 2025 was assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the trial Court ought not to have been dismissed the application as it is only typographical and the second ground is that Order VI Rule 17 outlines that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend the pleadings to determine the real question in controversy between the parties only stipulation is that no amendment should be allowed after commencement of trial if the party is failed to exercise due diligence or unless due diligence is proven. Lacklustre grounds have been raised in the memorandum of grounds.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant has stated that the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to act diligently in amending the survey number at relevant point of time despite having been raised this as defence in the written statement and the present application is filed with malafide intent and that does not appear to have been made in good faith and that by his blunder it causes injury to his respondent/defendant. The petitioners/plaintiffs should have been filed the application seeking for amendment of the schedule of property at least immediately after the filing of the written statement. However in the written statement admits that the boundaries are one and the same for the unamended Surrey number and the proposed survey number. Counsel further argued that when the plaintiff had deposed evidence and the same cannot be allowed to amend the schedule of property to get over the admissions made by her.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to act diligently in amending the survey number at the appropriate time, despite having raised this defense in the written statement. Furthermore, the present application is filed with mala fide intent.

7. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, it is relevant to note that the boundaries and extent of the suit property has not been denied by the respondent/defendant. It is the settled law that the boundaries will prevail over the measurement and survey number. The Apex Court in Subhaga Vs Shobha((2006) 5 SCC 466), wherein it has been held as under:-

                  " ... a property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific description is well established. Here the attempt had been to identify the suit property with reference to the boundaries and the Commissioner has identified that property with reference to such boundaries. Even if there was any discrepancy, normally, the boundaries should prevail."

8. When the property is situated within the boundaries, the boundaries will prevail the correction of survey number will not cause prejudice to the respondents/defendants.

9. The Apex Court, in the case of Peethani Suryanarayana Vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore((2009) 11 SCC 308) consideration of amendment sought for at a very belated stage, while dealing with an appeal challenging the amendment ordered with regard to substitution of Town Survey Number after the final decree was passed, has held as under:-

                  "18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. But, in a case of this nature, the same would be an empty formality. The facts are not disputed. The identity of the suit land has not been changed. It is not a case where, one land is being substituted by another. The fact that Town Survey No.463 is a joint family property is not in dispute. As indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which was the subject-matter of sale and only in respect thereof the appellants herein could claim partition. The appellants have also furthermore not been able to show as to how and in what manner they have been prejudiced."

10. In the case of Gurbakhsh Singh v. Buta Singh((2018) 6 SCC 567), the object of Order 6 rule 17 CPC is that courts should adjudicate the merits of the case that comes before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice the other side.

11. Thus this Court is of the view the mistake was an inadvertent mistake and it does not cause any prejudice to the respondent/ defendant in the suit which trial Court should have been allowed to be corrected so as to amend the survey number as the written statement admits that the boundaries are one and the same for the unamended Surrey number and the proposed survey number. Therefore, the order declining to correct the survey number cannot be said to be justified in law. The trial Court is directed to allow the application for amendment filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, however it is abundantly made clear the petitioners/plaintiffs are not permitted to adduce any further evidence. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs. For exercising the application belatedly the petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent/ defendant within a period of two weeks from date of this order failing to pay the said amount within this stipulated time, the petitioners cannot seek any further extension of time and it shall be deemed the Civil Revision Petition stand dismissed.

12. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 in I.A. No. 339 of 2025 is set aside.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.