Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pabba Shiva Koti And Anr. vs Uma Maheswari Boiled Rice Unit And Ors. on 13 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(2)ALD830, 2006(2)ALT566
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri B. Ghaneshyam Das Mandhani, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs.
2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 8-12-2004. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs, who are contesting the matter, had entered appearance. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein-plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No. 9 of 2000 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Warangal, filed an application I.A.No. 886 of 2004 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter for short referred to as 'Code') to amend the plaint for the relief of recovery of possession and also permit them to pay the necessary Court fee and suitably amend the plaint. The same was resisted by the revision petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. But, however, the learned Judge by order, dated 30-8-2004 allowed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing the petitioners had pointed out to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and would maintain that no details or particulars relating to the date of trespass or the date of dispossession had been mentioned. The affidavit is silent and also as vague as it can be. The learned Counsel also pointed out that this application was thought of after a long lapse of time of about five years after the institution of the suit. In the light of the vague stand taken by respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs in the suit, the question of limitation also may have to be considered and with a view to get over the bar of limitation, cleverly without specifying the date of trespass or date of dispossession, the application praying for amendment of the plaint was moved and the same was allowed without taking into consideration all these aspects.
4. Per contra, Sri Ghanashyamdas Mandhani, the learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs in the suit would maintain that the title is not in dispute or controversy and in fact, the first revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 65 of 1998 on the file of the self-same Court praying for the relief of specific performance and this aspect would go to show that the question of title is not in serious dispute. The learned Counsel also would maintain that initially a suit for permanent injunction was filed and in view of the fact that during the pendency of the suit the revision petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 forcibly occupied the suit schedule property, the recovery of possession had been prayed for. This could not alter or change the nature of the suit. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Adusumilli Venkateswar Rao and Anr. v. Chalasani Hymavathi .
5. Heard the learned Counsel on record.
6. The learned Judge had taken into consideration the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the stand taken in the counter, recorded reasons commencing from paras 7 to 11 and ultimately allowed the application praying for the amendment of plaint. Respondents 1 and 2 initially filed a suit for perpetual injunction and it is their case that during the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 forcibly occupied the plaint schedule property and several other facts, inclusive of an agreement also had been referred to. The same was resisted. It is not in serious controversy that the first revision petitioner also filed a suit O.S. No. 65 of 1998 praying for the relief of specific performance. It is needless to say that the merits and demerits of the proposed amendment need not be considered at this stage and the same may have to be decided at the appropriate stage. It may be true that certain particulars relating to the date of trespass and date of dispossession had not been specified. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the first revision petitioner had obtained an interim injunction in the suit for specific performance. In Adusumilli Venkateswar Rao and Anr. v. Chalasani Hymavathi (supra) wherein a suit for permanent injunction was initially filed, an application was moved for amendment of plaint, praying for the relief of recovery of possession and such an application can be allowed since such conversion does not amount to alteration of the nature of the suit. Same view was expressed in Kasinadhuni Kumareswara Rao v. Kaivaram Rajyalakshmamma and Ors. 1970 (1) APLJ 309. As already referred to supra, the Court while considering the application for amendment of pleading, need not seriously dwell upon the merits and de-merits of the proposed amendment, which the parties intend to introduce in the respective pleadings, but the same may have to be decided at the appropriate stage.
7. In the light of the decision referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order allowing the application for amendment of plaint, cannot be found fault, inasmuch as there is no illegality committed by the learned Judge in allowing such application. It is needless to say that the civil revision petition being devoid of merit, the same is bound to fail.
8. Accordingly, the revision petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.