Order: The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.66 of 2019 before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, for grant of permanent injunction in respect of 8,064 sq. feet of land in Sy.No.114 /3 of Panagal Revenue Village of Srikakulam Mandal, Chittoor District against the respondents herein. This suit was transferred to the XII Additional District Judge at Srikalahasthi and renumbered as O.S.No.71 of 2023. 2. The case of the petitioner in the suit was that the suit schedule property had been purchased by him, from his vendor, under a registered deed of sale dated 13.05.2015. Subsequently, an error was found in the boundaries set out in the sale deed and a rectification deed was executed by the vendor in favour of the petitioner, by way of a rectification deed dated 17.08.2015, registered as document No.4324 of 2015. The petitioner also traced title from one B. Guruva Reddy by setting out all the subsequent documents of alienation. The 4th respondent filed a written statement in which it was admitted that the original owner of the property was Sri B. Guruva Reddy and Smt. Jayamma, who were the parents of 4th respondent. The contention of the 4th respondent was that certain properties, including the suit schedule property, belonging to the family had been settled on her, by way of two registered gift settlement deeds executed in the year 2008 itself. It is stated that these settlements were done, apart from a settlement deed executed in favour of the 3rd defendant for the purpose of protecting the property against various creditors and the said settlement deeds were sham and nominal documents which should not be taken into account. Consequently, the sale of land in favour of the petitioner, on account of these documents cannot be allowed. 3. The trial Court took up the trial of the matter and the chief examination and cross examination of the petitioner was completed. At that stage, the petitioner moved I.A.No.627 of 2023, for amendment of the schedule to the property on the ground that the boundaries shown in the original deed of sale had been set out in the schedule by inadvertent mistake and that the corrected boundaries, as per the rectification deed, have to be included in the schedule. 4. The 4th respondent filed a counter to this application and the said counter was adopted by the respondents 1 to 3. 4. The 4th respondent filed a counter to this application and the said counter was adopted by the respondents 1 to 3. In this counter, it was stated that the petitioner had been subjected to cross examination wherein certain admissions were elicited from the petitioner in regard to the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and any amendment to the schedule at the present stage would cause prejudice to the respondents as they would lose the benefit of such admissions by the petitioner. 5. The trial Court after hearing both sides was pleased to dismiss the application by an order dated 12.03.2024. The trial Court after noticing various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court had held that the amendment of plaint, after commencement of trial, and at the stage of further evidence of the petitioner is not permissible and the petition is a belated petition which cannot be accepted. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 7. The trial Court after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court reported in Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly and others, (2008) 7 SCC 85 , M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by Lrs and Ors, AIR 2019 SC 940 , Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, (2023) SCC Online SC 256, Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, P. Durga Reddy and another vs. B. Yadi Reddy, in Civil Revision Petition No.1811 of 2014 dated 24.12.2014 by the Hon’ble High Court, Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and another, (2002) 7 SCC 559 and Baladev Singh & Ors. Etc vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc (2006) 6 SCC 498 had held that amendments cannot be allowed once trial commences, on account of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. 8. Etc vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc (2006) 6 SCC 498 had held that amendments cannot be allowed once trial commences, on account of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. 8. Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C reads as follows: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 9. This provision was considered in the above judgments wherein it was held that any application for amendment, after commencement of trial, should be considered on a very strict and narrow basis and it is only where it is shown that the party could not have raised the issue, despite due diligence, and that such amendment is required for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The said principle is binding on this Court also. 10. However, the fact remains that, the change in boundaries, by way of the rectification deed, has been set out in the plaint itself. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that there was an inadvertent mistake in recording the boundaries in the sale deed, cannot be rejected. There is every possibility that the petitioner, instead of recording the boundaries set out in the rectification deed had set out the boundaries in the deed of sale by inadvertence. 11. The purpose of pleadings is to set out the case of the party so as to enable the opposing party to mount a proper defense against such pleadings. In the present case, the respondents were always aware of the fact that the original boundaries set out in the deed of sale had been changed in the deed of rectification. 12. The respondents have also objected to the amendment on the ground that certain admissions made by the petitioner would be lost on account of the amendment to the suit schedule. 13. 12. The respondents have also objected to the amendment on the ground that certain admissions made by the petitioner would be lost on account of the amendment to the suit schedule. 13. A perusal of the evidence of the petitioner, recorded as P.W.1, would show that the original deed of sale dated 13.05.2015 and the original deed of rectification dated 17.08.2015 have been marked as Exs.A4 and A5 respectively. The cross examination of the petitioner, in regard to the boundaries is as follows: I know the schedule for the suit property as follows: East: Rajaveedi, West: Gurava Reddy’s property, South: 20 feet road North: Property of Padmavathi: It is true that in the plaint schedule I have referred western boundary as 20 feet road. Witness adds that as per rectification sale deed western boundary referred as Gurava Reddy’s property. It is true that the said rectification sale deed obtained prior to filing of the suit. It is true that in the plaint schedule boundaries are not confirmed with the rectification sale deed boundaries. 14. The above statement is only in line with the averments in the plaint. It is not clear as to how amendment of the boundaries would prejudice the respondents. 15. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti dated 12.03.2024 in I.A.No.627 of 2023 with a further direction to the trial Court to permit the amendment sought in I.A.No.627 of 2023 in O.S.No.71 of 2023. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.