( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length. ( 2 ) THE relevant portion of the impugned order reads as hereunder :"as already discussed that this is a suit for permanent injunction and the petitioner who filed the suit with specific boundaries are different from the suit document i. e. , the registered sale deed. Now the petitioner pleads that due to ignorance he has mistakenly mentioned the boundaries. When the petitioner-plaintiff is not aware of the boundaries to his own land for which he filed a suit for permanent injunction and when he wants to change the boundaries to the suit land the reliefs sought by the petitioner-plaintiff for which he filed a suit will be completely changed if the boundaries are changed by virtue of the proposed amendment. Though the nature of the suit is not changed the reliefs of permanent injunction sought by the petitioner-plaintiff for specified land with specific boundaries, if the boundaries are allowed to be changed, will be for a different land, with the proposed boundaries. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for the proposed amendment. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. ( 3 ) SRI Raghuveera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that on a mistaken impression that now by virtue of the proposed amendment, the boundaries in the plaint are being changed principally, the application for amendment of plaint was dismissed. The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to the boundaries which had been specified in the plaint schedule and also had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the plaint in general and Para 4 of the plaint in particular. The learned Counsel would maintain that by the proposed amendment, no prejudice is caused to the other side and hence the dismissal of the application cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Ashok Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that the application itself is a belated one and even otherwise, successive applications for amendment of the plaint of this nature cannot be sustained and absolutely there are no bona fides in the present application. ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the impugned order. ( 6 ) THE relevant portion of the order had already been specified supra. ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the impugned order. ( 6 ) THE relevant portion of the order had already been specified supra. The learned Judge also placed reliance on certain decisions dealing with amendment of pleadings and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application is liable to be dismissed. It is no doubt true that the suit is of the year 1997 and this application had been thought of in 2002. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the trial had not yet commenced. In view of the fact that the boundaries had been specified in the plaint schedule and in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, this Court is of the considered opinion that the approach adopted by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the merits and demerits which are to be decided at the stage of trial need not be gone into at the time of considering an application for amendment of pleading. It is made clear that the merits and demerits of the proposed amendment sought to be introduced may have to be gone into at the stage of final disposal of the suit. It is also needless to say that the respondents are at liberty to resist the same by putting in proper additional written statement, if they are so advised. With the above observation, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the CRP is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.