Judgment :- Inveighing the order dated 012. 2007, passed by the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee in I.A.No.1643 of 2007 in O.S.No.176 of 1991, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but pithily, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.176 of 1991 for permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from entering into the suit property, which is set out here under for ready reference: "Lands measuring 1 acre in Survey Number 85/2 (present Survey Number 85/18) in Ramapuram Village, Saidapet Taluk, bounded on the north by sigamanis lends; south by Arokkia dosss lands east by Battai and west by Madalane Ammal with a hut put up by the plaintiffs." (ii) During the pendency of the suit, so to say when the trial is in progress, the plaintiffs have chosen to file I.A.No.1643 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC so as to get the plaint amended for the purpose of incorporating one other Survey No.84/3 in the schedule of the property. However, the lower Court dismissed the application. 3. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds, inter alia thus: .The lower Court on some assumed technical grounds dismissed the genuine prayer of the petitioners. The patta would reveal that within the four boundaries as mentioned in the plaint, S.No.84/3 is also included, but it was omitted to be mentioned and that there is no embargo for adding the same. 4. Despite printing the names concerned, none appeared. 5. A bare poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the copy of the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and display that the plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction relating to the property described in the schedule of the plaint, which is extracted supra; according to the plaintiffs, they do not want change of boundaries, but they seek to get added in the plaint one S.No.84/3 also along with Survey Number 85/2 (present Survey Number 85/18); in the sale deed erroneously the additional number was left out and that they pray for adding the same. 6. 6. The lower Court in the penultimate paragraph of its order referred to the fact that even before the filing of the suit in the year 1991, in the patta obtained by the plaintiffs relating to the suit property, there was reference to the S.No.84/3 and in such a case, I am at a loss to understand as to why the lower Court had not allowed the I.A. for amendment. Based on the patta alone the plaintiffs want to get incorporated the additional Survey Number and as such, it cannot be taken as an after thought on the part of the plaintiffs in seeking such amendment. 7. I am fully aware of the fact that recent amended Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC would mandate that in a casual manner amendment of the plaint should not be allowed. However, once it is felt that owing to error or oversight certain particulars have not already been furnished in the plaint, it is always open for the Court at any stage to permit such amendments to be carried out. The amendment sought would not in any way prejudice the defence of the defendants for the reason that it is the plaintiffs who should prove their case. By merely allowing the amendment to be incorporated in the plaint, there is no hard and fast rule that the Court has to accept the plaintiffs case that the plaintiffs are the owners of the S.No.84/3. The plaintiffs, as of now, want to project their case that in the sale deed of their father, even though four boundaries were found mentioned properly, nonetheless, the additional S.No.84/3 was left out and that based on the patta they want to get corrected/amended the plaint. 8. No doubt the trial commenced, nevertheless it is for the defendants to point out that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any extent in S.No.84/3 and it is for the Court to ultimately decide since patta itself is not conclusive as per law. However, the plaintiffs at this stage cannot be precluded from taking advantage of the facts found detailed and delineated in the patta and get the plaint amended also. 9. However, the plaintiffs at this stage cannot be precluded from taking advantage of the facts found detailed and delineated in the patta and get the plaint amended also. 9. To the risk of repetition without being tautologous, I would highlight that the defendants would not in any way be prejudiced as they could be allowed to file additional written statement and also adduce evidence as per them that the plaintiffs, are not the owners in S.No.84/3. 10. On the petitioners side, the decision of this Court reported in 2007(1) CTC 513 [Chinnammal vs. Manickam @ Sellappan] is referred to. The ratio decidendi of that precedent is that on mere technical grounds amendment sought to correct the suit property should not be denied. 11. In the result the impugned order dated 012. 2007 is set aside by allowing this revision petition and consequently the I.A.No.1643 of 2007 shall stand allowed. The defendants shall be given opportunity to file additional written statement on the amendment of the plaint as per the order of this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.