Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 69 (AP)

Gundepalli Anjaneyulu v. Calindi Varalakshmi

2020-01-28

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2020
ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 11.12.2008 passed in IA No. 393 of 2017 in OS No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, filed for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. In the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed IA No. 393 of 2017 seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that he could not recollect the memory of previous proceedings held between himself and the 1st defendant regarding the plaint schedule property due to his old age and ill-health. The Trial Court disbelieved the version of the petitioner and dismissed the IA. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit sought for amendment of the pleadings as per the provisions under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. He submits that the amendment sought for, was only to the extent of the relief sought in the suit and originally, the petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction and he wanted to amend the plaint with regard to the schedule property. He placed reliance on the decision in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, 2002 (6) ALD 63 (SC) : AIR 2002 SC 3369 . The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: "The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the year 1988 for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction alleging the plaintiff-appellant's possession over the suit property which is an agricultural land. In the year 1999 but before the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking an amendment in the plaint. It is alleged that in January, 1989 that is during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. On such averment the plaintiff sought for relief of declaration of title to the suit property and consequential relief of delivery of possession. The suit was proposed to be valued accordingly alongwith the payment of Court fee. Held, the basic structure of the suit would not be altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. The suit was proposed to be valued accordingly alongwith the payment of Court fee. Held, the basic structure of the suit would not be altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. If it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent for the said relief suit the same relief can be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. The plaintiff thus permitted to incorporate the plea sought to be raised by way of amendment in the original plaint foregoing the plea to the extent given up by him before the Trial Court. However, in view of the delay in making the application for amendment, it is directed that the plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) as a condition precedent to incorporating the amendment in the plaint." 4. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner was permitted to amend the pleadings, as per the grounds urged in the affidavit, that as he fell sick and suffering with old age ailments, he was unable to recollect the facts of the case properly. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the defendants are in no way concerned with the suit schedule property and they did not take any steps even to identify their property. They have high handedly tried to dispossess the defendants and their family members from the suit schedule property. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 1964, from his vendor and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner has filed a petition seeking for amendment of the pleadings seeking relief of declaration of title over the suit schedule property in a suit filed for permanent injunction. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants that they are interfering in his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In the light of the decision Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu case (supra), in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is just and necessary to amend the plaint by adding the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. In the light of the decision Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu case (supra), in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is just and necessary to amend the plaint by adding the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. 6. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants/respondents by way of seeking amendment of the suit. The trial no doubt, has already commenced and some witnesses have already been examined, but in order to decide substantial issue once for all between the parties, the amendment can be permitted. This amendment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties and for final determination of the lis. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of this Court in Pedapati Veerraghavulu (died) and others v. Parla Venkanna and others, 2019 (6) ALD 500 (AP) : 2019 (6) ALT 310 (AP), wherein it was held that to resolve the disputes once for all between the parties, it is appropriate to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint. The amendment would be necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties in the suit. 8. In another decision of this Court in Hanumanthu Saraswathi v. Hanumanthu Mahalakshmi, 2019 (6) ALD 233 (AP) : 2019 (6) ALT 276 (AP), it was held that an application at a belated stage under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, cannot be rejected on technical grounds and in appropriate cases where amendment is required for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit, the same can be ordered. 9. In the light of the decisions cited supra, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 11.12.2008 passed in IA No. 393 of 2017 in OS No. 147 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. No costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.