ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.345/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District (for short ‘the civil court’) impugning the order dated 18.1.2019. The civil Court by the impugned order dated 18.1.2019 has rejected the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (for short, ‘the CPC’) for permission to amend the plaint by furnishing the boundaries to the suit schedule property viz., the land measuring 4 acres 27 guntas in survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. The civil Court has opined that permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint would tantamount to allowing the petitioner to withdraw an admission. The civil Court has also opined that petitioner, who is not diligent in seeking amendment, cannot be permitted to amend the plaint. 2. The petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.345/2013 for permanent injunction against the respondent from interfering with the petitioner’s alleged possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner’s specific case is that the land in Survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore is diverted from agricultural to nonagricultural (the details of the official Memorandum issued for such diversion are mentioned in the plaint schedule). The petitioner has purchased only an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas out of the total extent of 5 acre 2 guntas because an extent of 15 guntas out of the total extent is utilized for Road. 3. On the other hand, the defendant’s specific case is that he has purchased an area measuring 15 guntas in Survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, subsequent to the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is aware of the defendant’s purchase, and the petitioner is also aware that this 15 guntas in survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore is to the eastern side of the suit schedule property. Nevertheless, the petitioner has filed the suit for permanent injunction deliberately without mentioning the boundaries to the suit schedule property and suppressing the respondent’s title and possession of abutting 15 guntas in Survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. 4. Nevertheless, the petitioner has filed the suit for permanent injunction deliberately without mentioning the boundaries to the suit schedule property and suppressing the respondent’s title and possession of abutting 15 guntas in Survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is specific that the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property measuring 4 acres 27 guntas with the other 15 guntas being utilized for Road and that is not diluted howsoever by seeking the present amendment. The present amendment is only to bring on record the boundaries of the suit schedule property as asserted by the petitioner. The petitioner’s failure to mention the boundaries of the suit schedule property and to file amendment prior to the present date is bona fide and only an inadvertent error. 5. The learned counsel to the petitioner relies upon the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC as well as Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 to assert that the requirement in law is to identify an immovable property either by the number or the boundaries. The petitioner in identifying the suit schedule property has mentioned the number and the measurement as well as the details of the diversion allowed under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The petitioner has also furnished a Rough Sketch of the suit schedule properties as a plaint document to identify the suit schedule property even with the boundaries. The petitioner has filed the application for amendment because the defendant has raised a dispute as to the identity of a portion of the suit schedule property, and the description of the boundaries would enable effective determination of the real controversy between the parties. As such, the civil Court has erred in concluding that the petitioner is seeking to withdraw an admission in the plaint. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is neither deliberate delay nor mala fides in filing the amendment application. The application is filed immediately after the orders of the appellate court in a proceeding under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC confirming the civil Court’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on the ground that there is serious dispute about the identity of the property. The application is filed immediately after the orders of the appellate court in a proceeding under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC confirming the civil Court’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC on the ground that there is serious dispute about the identity of the property. The question of delay in filing the application will have to be examined in the light of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which stipulates that the amendments cannot be allowed after the settlement of issues. In the present the application for amendment to include the boundary is filed much before the settlement of issues. As such, the civil Court has erred in concluding that the petitioner’s application for amendment is belated. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others, reported in (2009)10 SCC 84 submits that the courts must refuse amendments which are neither bona fide nor legitimate. The petitioner is not bona fide in seeking the amendment. The petitioner and the respondent are also parties to the revenue proceedings, and specific defence is taken on behalf of the defendant in such revenue proceedings relying upon the failure of the petitioner to mention the boundaries in the plaint schedule. The petitioner, who is not bona fide and has deliberately not mentioned the boundaries at the first instance, has not taken any steps to make an application for amendment prior to the disposal of the appeal by the appellate court. The petitioner by bringing in the proposed amendment viz., the boundaries seeks to justify the prayer for injunction including the extent of 15 guntas in Survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore which is owned by the respondent. 8. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner indisputably has enclosed a rough sketch of the suit schedule property to the plaint and this sketch also shows the extent of 15 guntas in Survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore which according to the petitioner is utilized for Road by the original owner, and the amendment to include the boundaries would only be in aid of the description of the property in the plaint schedule and the plaint rough sketch. 9. 9. The petitioner’s application for amendment to include the boundaries should be examined in the light of the rules as regards the description of immovable properties viz., Order VII Rule 3 of CPC as well as Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967. The description of the immovable property should contain sufficient details to identify the property, and if property is identifiable with number and boundaries, they shall also be mentioned. It is obvious from the respective cases of the parties that the essential dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is about the location of the land measuring 15 guntas in survey No.67 of Rajapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Undisputedly, the petitioner has furnished the property number and the details of the orders/official memorandum permitting diversion of the suit schedule property from agricultural to nonagricultural uses, apart from furnishing a rough sketch of the suit schedule property and the area in dispute. 10. If the proposed amendment is confined to including the boundaries of the suit schedule property described in the schedule to the plaint, which will have to be necessarily read in conjunction with the rough sketch annexed to the plaint, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would only be clarificatory subject to necessary proof. The proposed amendment would also be necessary for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. The provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC also mandate that every amendment as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions or controversies, subject to the applicable conditions, shall be allowed. Further, it is settled that the pretrial amendments must be construed liberally. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others supra has enumerated the conditions that entail dismissal of the amendment application. Undoubtedly, a belated and a mala fide application cannot be permitted. However, in the light of the circumstances discussed, it cannot be reasonably held that the petitioner’s application for amendment is either belated or vitiated by mala fides only because the application for amendment is filed after the disposal of the appeal though issues were not settled as of the date of the application. 12. However, in the light of the circumstances discussed, it cannot be reasonably held that the petitioner’s application for amendment is either belated or vitiated by mala fides only because the application for amendment is filed after the disposal of the appeal though issues were not settled as of the date of the application. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the civil Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law in rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment on the ground that the amendment is belated and that the amendment would tantamount to permitting the petitioner to withdraw an admission. Though this Court by order dated 17.9.2018 in W.P.No.28706/2017 has directed the civil Court to dispose of the suit within six months, it is obvious from the submissions from the learned counsel for the parties that the suit is yet to be decided. It is therefore be necessary to reiterate that the civil Court shall expedite the disposal of the suit after securing the necessary extension of time in W.P.No.28706/2017, if not already obtained. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner to carry out amendment of the plaint for including the boundaries in the plaint schedule is allowed. The petitioner shall carry out amendment on the next date of hearing before the civil Court, or such further time as may be allowed by the civil Court. The petitioner shall also accordingly file amended plaint. The petitioner and the respondent shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.