Judgment This revision is filed against the order dated 02.06.2010 in I.A. No.631 of 2010 in O.S. No.349 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. The revision petitioner is defendant No.1 and the respondents are the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs filed the present I.A. No.631 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for amendment of the plaint and the plaint schedule. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the I.A. To give more clarity, the revision petitioner, who is respondent No.1 (defendant No.1) in the I.A, is hereinafter referred to as the respondent. 4. The case of the petitioners is that in the plaint the extent of the plaint schedule property was wrongly shown as Ac.3-30½ cents bearing Survey Nos.164, 168,169/1,169/3 and 170/1. In fact, the extent of Ac.1-18½ cents from out of Ac.3-30½ cents was acquired by the Government long back for providing house sites to backward people and it was assigned to them and they also raised residential houses in the said extent. An extent of Ac.0.39 cents was sold under a registered sale deed by petitioner No.1, father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and husband of petitioner No.6 to the father of respondent. Now an extent of Ac.1-73 cents only remains which is the plaint schedule property. Because of oversight, it was mentioned as Ac.3-30½ cents in the plaint as well as in the plaint schedule instead of Ac.1-73 cents. Therefore, they sought permission to strike out the extent of Ac.3-30½ cents by substituting Ac.1-73 cents in the plaint as well as in the plaint schedule. 5. The case of the respondent is that in her written statement at Paragraph No.6 she pleaded that ‘the suit schedule land an extent of Ac.1.73 cents is not in existence on land and there is no such joint extent of land in the said boundaries still. Moreover, the petitioners gave different extents and survey numbers at different stages. They are not assertive regarding the material aspects. Moreover, the petitioners gave different extents and survey numbers at different stages. They are not assertive regarding the material aspects. The petitioners did not come to the court with clean hands.’ The petitioners previously filed I.A.No.734 of 2006 to amend the plaint on similar grounds and the same was dismissed and the matter was carried to this Court in revision. As per the orders in the revision, the amendment was carried out in the plaint as well as in the plaint schedule regarding the extent, survey numbers and boundaries. While so, the petitioners filed the present I.A. to delete the amended portions in the plaint and the plaint schedule. Filing amendment petitions one after another is unsustainable in law. The petitioners filed the present I.A. to fill up the lacunae which were pointed out by the respondent in her written statement, and also to take away her defence. If the I.A. is allowed, much prejudice would be caused to the respondent and it also changes the very structure of the suit. 6. Taking into consideration the material available on record and the submissions made on either side, the trial Court allowed the I.A. subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-to the respondents, holding that if the amendment is not permitted, it would cause prejudice to the petitioners as they would not able to present the real facts before the Court to decide the main controversy in the suit. 7. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent (revision petitioner) contended that the trial Court has failed to notice that earlier the petitioners had filed I.A.No.734 of 2006 for amendment and the same was dismissed and they carried the matter to this Court by filing revision and as per the orders in the revision, the amendment was carried out, and after a lapse of four years, the petitioners again have come-up with the present I.A. to delete the amended portions in the plaint and the plaint schedule, without even seeking leave of the trial Court. The learned counsel also contended that the trial Court failed to notice that the petitioners have given different extents and survey numbers at different stages and they are not assertive regarding the material aspects. The learned counsel alleged that the petitioners to cover-up their laches, filed the present I.A. for amendment. 9. The learned counsel also contended that the trial Court failed to notice that the petitioners have given different extents and survey numbers at different stages and they are not assertive regarding the material aspects. The learned counsel alleged that the petitioners to cover-up their laches, filed the present I.A. for amendment. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents 1 to 3 and 6 herein -plaintiffs) submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court needs no interference at the hands of this Court as no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the amendment is carried out, and that she can get an opportunity to rebut the same. As such, there are no merits in the C.R.P. and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the trial is not yet commenced. It is on the record that the petitioners had amended the plaint and the plaint schedule as per the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No.3286 of 2007 dated 24.10.2008. The present I.A. is filed for amendment of the plaint and the plaint schedule stating that inadvertently they did not mention the exact extent of the plaint schedule property in the plaint as well as in the plaint schedule. The contention of the respondent (revision petitioner) is that earlier I.A.No.734 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners to amend the plaint on similar grounds and the same was dismissed and the matter was carried to this Court in the revision and as per the orders in the revision, the plaint as well as the plaint schedule property was amended, and as such, the present I.A. for amendment is unsustainable in law. Now, it is to be seen whether the present amendment can be allowed, and if it is allowed, would it alter the nature of the suit or change the cause of action? The case of the petitioners is that they did not inform their counsel before the trial Court about the extent of land acquired by the Government and the extent of land sold by them out of the extent mentioned in the plaint as well as in the plaint schedule. The case of the petitioners is that they did not inform their counsel before the trial Court about the extent of land acquired by the Government and the extent of land sold by them out of the extent mentioned in the plaint as well as in the plaint schedule. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the present amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and that the nature of the suit would not alter and the cause of action would not change. Further, denial of such amendment will go to the very root of the matter, and as such, it is necessary to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint and the plaint schedule so as to effectively adjudicate the controversies involved in the suit once for all. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference from this Court, and as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.