Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 755 (TS)

Oruganti Ramulu v. P. Ravindar Goud

2022-11-24

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2022
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 22.07.2022 passed in I.A. No. 555 of 2017 in O.S. No. 37 of 2009 by the learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Revision. 2. Heard Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit O.S. No. 37 of 2009 initially for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, they have filed an application vide I.A. No. 555 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') and Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the pleadings and to implead respondent Nos. 3 to 21 therein as defendant Nos. 3 to 21 to the suit on the following grounds:- i) Originally the land admeasuring Ac. 2.08 guntas in Sy. No. 7 (bounded by East: Sy. No. 8, West: Sy. No. 6, North: Railway line, South: remaining land in Sy. No. 7) situated within the limits of Yenugonda village belongs to A. Ramesh ii) He sold the said land to four persons it eluding 1st petitioner and husband of 2nd petitioner under a registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 217 of 1986, dated 24.01.1986. iii) Out of the said extent of Ac. 2.08 guntas of land, two purchasers namely Ramakrishna Reddy and Suryanarayana sold their respective Extents i.e. Ac. 0.22 guntas each. iv) Revenue officials have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs. v) The petitioners/plaintiffs have executed a registered agreement of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney with possession in respect of the suit land in favour of G. Shankaraiah and D. Bheemaiah vide registered agreements of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney documents bearing Nos. 4296 of 2007 and 6442 of 2007 respectively and possession was delivered to them. vi) Rectification deeds bearing document Nos. 982 and 983 of 2009 were also executed. vii) The petitioners/plaintiffs got fixed stone pillars along with the suit schedule lands. viii) When defendants tried to interfere with their possession, they have filed the aforesaid suit seeking perpetual injunction. 4296 of 2007 and 6442 of 2007 respectively and possession was delivered to them. vi) Rectification deeds bearing document Nos. 982 and 983 of 2009 were also executed. vii) The petitioners/plaintiffs got fixed stone pillars along with the suit schedule lands. viii) When defendants tried to interfere with their possession, they have filed the aforesaid suit seeking perpetual injunction. ix) In the written statement, the defendants have not disputed the ownership of the petitioners/plaintiff's in respect of the suit schedule property, but they are disputing location of the land in Sy. No. 7. x) The defendants have also field I.A. No. 555 of 2013 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit land to identify the nature of land and the same was allowed. xi) The Advocate Commissioner has visited the land in Sy. No. 7 admeasuring Ac. 4.08 guntas of Yenukonda Village shivar (bounded by East: Land in Sy. No. 8, West: land in Sy. No. 6, North: Railway line and South: Land in Sy. No. 8) on 06.01.2015 and found several basements, open place and the and is not under cultivation. xii) He has also filed sketch map along with his report. xiii) According to the plaintiffs, they have purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 1.04 guntas and the same is not converted into non-agriculture. xiv) During pendency of the suit just before visit of Advocate Commissioner, in December. 2014, some of the persons occupied the suit land alleging that they have purchased the plot from defendants, illegally without any right over it occupied and raised basements in the suit land. xv) In view of the same, it is necessary to amend the pleadings of the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of the suit land and mandatory injunction to dismantle the basements by adding the respondent Nos. 3 to 21 as defendant Nos. 3 to 21 in the suit. 4. The said application was opposed by the defendants on the following grounds:- i) After 8 years, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid application and thus they are seeking amendment after 8 years. ii) They were never in possession of the property. iii) If the amendment is allowed, it will change the entire nature of the suit which is impermissible. iv) They cannot seek for dismantling the basements. ii) They were never in possession of the property. iii) If the amendment is allowed, it will change the entire nature of the suit which is impermissible. iv) They cannot seek for dismantling the basements. v) Four persons have purchased the aforesaid property jointly under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 217 of 1986, dated 24.01.1986 and the said four purchasers that have right over an extent of Ac. 0.22 guntas of land each respectively. vi) Out of the said extent of Ac. 2.08 guntas of land, said Rama Krishna Reddy and Suryanarayana sold their respective extents i.e. Ac. 0.22 guntas each in favour of the defendants 5 years back. vii) Defendants have purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 1.05 guntas out of Ac. 1.22 guntas in Sy. No. 7 under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1057 of 2003 dated 10.03.2003 with boundaries viz.: North: Railway line, South: Sy. No. 7. East: Sy. No. 8 and West: Sy. No. 7 situated at Yenugonda Village. viii) They have also purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 1.08 guntas in Sy. No. 8 of same village under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1336 of 2002, dated 08.04.2002. ix) The entire suit land is made into plots and when defendants were raising basements, the plaintiffs came with goondas and damaged the plot boundary stones and created nuisance in the suit land. x) The plaintiffs never fixed boundary stones in the suit land. xi) Therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Application to occupy their land. 5. Vide order dated 22.07.2022, the Court below dismissed the said application on the following grounds:- i) The defendants clearly pleaded in the written statement that they have constructed basements in their plots and they are in possession of the suit schedule property. ii) It is not agricultural land but it is in the shape of plots. iii) After long period of eight years after filing a written statement, the plaintiffs came with the proposed amendment. iv) If the plaintiffs are having any grievance, certainly they would have preferred amendment immediately which they have not done. v) As seen from the proposed amendments, it seems that the very nature of the suit itself will be changed if once proposed amendments were allowed. iv) If the plaintiffs are having any grievance, certainly they would have preferred amendment immediately which they have not done. v) As seen from the proposed amendments, it seems that the very nature of the suit itself will be changed if once proposed amendments were allowed. vi) The defendants clearly pleaded in the written statement that since the dale of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and constructed basements in the petition schedule property, they cannot change their version by saying that before Inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, the defendants occupied the petition schedule property, which proves that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the petition schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. By way of proposed amendments, the plain tills cannot change entire nature of suit. 6. Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioners herein/plaintiffs have filed one application with two reliefs and the second relief is consequential and therefore, it is permissible. By way of allowing the amendment there won't be any change in the nature of suit and no prejudice will be caused to the defendants. It will reduce multiplicity of the litigation. He has also placed reliance on two judgments viz.: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and C.R.P. No. 369 of 2015, dated 19.09.2022. 7. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents. 8. From the aforesaid pleadings, the following two issues have fallen for consideration by this Court:- 1. Whether single application with two reliefs is maintainable and whether the second relief sought by the petitioners is a consequential relief? 2. Whether the proposed amendment amending the suit for perpetual injunction to suit for declaration of title recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction to dismantle the basements, amounts to change of nature of the very suit? Issue No. 1:- 9. To decide this issue, it is relevant to extract Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders which is as follows:- Separate Application for each distinct prayer:-There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. Issue No. 1:- 9. To decide this issue, it is relevant to extract Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders which is as follows:- Separate Application for each distinct prayer:-There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several relief's are combined in one application, the court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such relief's unless the relief's are consequential and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others. 10. As stated supra, according to the petitioners/plaintiffs, during pendency of the suit, which is before the visit of the Advocate Commissioner in December, 2014, some of the persons occupied the suit land alleging that they have purchased the plots from the defendants, occupied the land and raised basements. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the plaint to implead proposed respondents as defendant Nos. 3 to 21 in the suit. Therefore, according to this Court, 2nd relief i.e. impleadment of the proposed respondents as defendant Nos. 3 to 21 is only a consequential relief. Therefore, single application seeking the aforesaid we reliefs viz.: amendment of the pleadings and impleadment it is permissible. Issue No. 2- 11. Coming to Issue No. 2. it is relevant to refer Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which is extracted as follows:- 17. Amendment of pleadings. - 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 questions 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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Perusal of the aforesaid proviso would reveal that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings on coming to conclusion that the same is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 12. Perusal of the aforesaid proviso would reveal that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings on coming to conclusion that the same is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 12. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai (2000) 1 SCC 712 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, referring to the judgments rendered by it held as follows:- The-purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be clawed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. 13. Referring to the said principle, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan (2001) 2 SCC 472 held:- The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. 14. In M. Revanna Vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives (2019) 4 SCC 332 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held:- Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extern curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. The proviso, to an extern curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in he pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately an terms of money. 15. In Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu AIR 2002 SCC 3369, wherein a suit for issuance of prohibitory injunction was filed initially and later amendment was sought to amend the suit for the relief of declaration of title to the suit property and delivery of possession. It was alleged that during the pendency of the suit, defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. The application filed by the plaintiff seeding amendment was dismissed by the Court below and confirm d by the High Court. On examination of the facts of the case therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic structure of the suit is not 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 suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit, it is further held that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. Such amendments as are directed towards putting forth and seeking determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. 16. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. 16. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. In former case generally, it can be assumed that the defendant is not prejudiced because he will have full opportunity of meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended. In the latter cases, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. 17. In the said case, amendment was sought after almost 11 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering he fact that there was no change in the nature of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, allowed the amendment application. 18. I Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. K.K. Modi, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Order VI Rule 17 consist of two parts where is the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The Hon'ble Apex court also pointed out that whether the subsequent events sought to be introduced in the pleadings by way of amendment in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. But if any amendment results in changing basic nature of the suit, the amendment may be refused. 19. In Revajeet Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 , referring to the English Case i.e. Cropper Vs. But if any amendment results in changing basic nature of the suit, the amendment may be refused. 19. In Revajeet Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons (2009) 10 SCC 84 , referring to the English Case i.e. Cropper Vs. Smith-1884 26 CHD 700(CA) and others leading decisions on the subject, the Apex Court reiterated that whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy; whether any prejudice or injustice to other party is likely to cause; and whether compensating the opposite party with costs would mitigate the hardship, are the questions which need to be considered by the Court while ordering amendment. The principles relevant for the purpose were indicated as follows:- 1. whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; 2. whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; 3. the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; 4. refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; 5. whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and 6. as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. 20. I Pankaja Vs. Yellappa (dead) by Legal Representatives (2004) 6 SCC 415 , the Apex Court held that the law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised in a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straight jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends oh the factual background of that case. 21. In a recent judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. If the granting of an amendment really sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straight jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends oh the factual background of that case. 21. In a recent judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 70 summed up the conclusions which are as follows:- (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is mala fide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action the amendment is liable to be allowed event after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately or decision. (x) Where he amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to he case set up in the paint, the amendment must be disallowed Where however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors.. 2022 SCC Online Del 1897) Thus, amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit. Dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize litigation and to decide real controversy. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors.. 2022 SCC Online Del 1897) Thus, amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit. Dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize litigation and to decide real controversy. Thus, the decision of application made under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is a very serious judicial exercise and should never be exercised in a causal manner. As held by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad. 22. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, coming to the facts of the present case, as discussed supra, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit vide O.S. No. 37 of 2009 for perpetual injunction. There is no dispute that originally one Shabuddin was the owner of the land to an extent of Ac. 4-08 guntas in Sy. No. 7 situated in Yenugonda village, Mahabubnagar District. One Ramadevi had purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 2,00 guntas and one Ramesh had purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 2.08 guntas from Shabuddin. The said Ramadevi has sold her land to the extent of Ac. 2.00 guntas in Sy. No. 7 to Nagendla Ram Mohan and one Thatikonda Ramakrishna Reddy under registered sale deed bearing document No. 216 of 1986 dated 24.01.1986. Said Ramesh has sold away his land to an extent of Ac. 2.08 guntas in Sy. No. 7 in favour of four persons i.e. Oruganti Ramulu, the petitioner/plaintiff No. 1, Potuluri Suryanarayana, Thatikonda Ramakrishna Reddy and Vinukurthi Ram Murthy (husband of petitioner/plaintiff No. 2) jointly under registered sale deed bearing document No. 217 of 1986. dated 24.01.1986. Therefore, the said Thatikonda Ramakrishna Reddy has sold away his land in favour of Defendant No. 1 and another under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1057 of 2003 dated 10.03.2003. It is also not in dispute that 1st plaintiff had executed registered agreement of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney under document bearing No. 4296 of 2007 dated 17.05.2007 to an extent of Ac ().22 guntas in Sy. No. 7 in favour of G. Shankaraiah and 2nd plaintiff had executed a registered agreement of sale - cum - General power of Attorney bearing document No. 6442 of 2007 dated 07.08.2007 in favour of D. Bheemaiah. 23. No. 7 in favour of G. Shankaraiah and 2nd plaintiff had executed a registered agreement of sale - cum - General power of Attorney bearing document No. 6442 of 2007 dated 07.08.2007 in favour of D. Bheemaiah. 23. It is also not in dispute that the defendants also purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 1.08 guntas in Sy. No. 8 from Christopher under registered sale deed bearing document No. 1336 of 2003, dated 08.04.2002. It is also not in dispute that I.A. No. 373 if 2016 in the said suit was filed to correct the mistake of the extent of the suit land. The same is allowed. The defendants have filed I.A. No. 555 of 2017 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit land to identify the nature of the land. The said application was allowed. 24. The Advocate-Commissioner has submitted his report on 06.01.2015, as per which, several basements and open place were found in the suit land. The land is not under cultivation. Therefore, the petitioners herein/plaintiffs have filed the present application vide I.A. No. 555 of 2017 on 17.08.2017 seeking the proposed amendments to the pleadings. 25. As discussed supra, there is no dispute with regard to purchase of suit schedule property by the plaintiffs and also execution of the aforesaid two registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the aforesaid G. Shankaraiah and D. Bheemaiah. It is also not in dispute with regard to purchase of land admeasuring Ac. 2.08 guntas in Sy. No. 7 by the vendors of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Therefore, according to this Court, there is no change in the nature of the suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs are seeking to amend the pleadings of suit from perpetual injunction to suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to dismantle the basements. Therefore, there is no change of nature of suit. Ultimately, the disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants have to be resolved and real controversy has to be decided on consideration of the pleadings. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. 26. Therefore, there is no change of nature of suit. Ultimately, the disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants have to be resolved and real controversy has to be decided on consideration of the pleadings. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. 26. In the present case, there were two options to the plaintiff viz.: (i) filing of the fresh suit seeking declaration of title, recovery off possession and mandatory injunction to dismantle the basements and (ii) seeking amendments amending the plaint from perpetual injunction to declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to dismantle the basements. The petitioners/plaintiffs have opted to seek amendment. When filing of fresh suit is permissible, it is equally permissible to seek amendment of the plaint as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sampath Kumar (supra). 27. In me present case, trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that in the written statement, the defendants c early pleaded that since the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff instructed basements in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot change their version by saying that before inspection by Advocate-Commissioner, the defendants occupied the suit schedule property which proves that the plaintiffs are mot in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and further held that by way of proposed amendments, the plaintiffs cannot change entire nature of the suit. The said finding is not based on the actual facts and law. Therefore, trial Court cannot give said finding in. I.A. No. 555 of 2017 filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment to plaint i.e. to implead the respondents as defendant Nos. 3 to 21. 28. Perusal of the record would also reveal that though the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid application to implead the proposed respondents as defendant Nos. 3 to 21, it appears from the record that the Court below has not issued any notice to the proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21. Without ordering notice, without hearing them, the Court cannot decide the said application. It is a procedural irregularity committed by the Court below. The same can be corrected by this Court by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 29. As stated supra, the suit of the year 2009. 3 to 21. Without ordering notice, without hearing them, the Court cannot decide the said application. It is a procedural irregularity committed by the Court below. The same can be corrected by this Court by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 29. As stated supra, the suit of the year 2009. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents/defendants. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners herein have not made the proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21 as parties to the present Revision. The only explanation given by them is that in the trial Court they have not appeared, but perusal of the impugned order would reveal that there is no mention of ordering notice and service of notice to proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21 and their non-appearance etc. Thus again there is procedural irregularity committed by the petitioners in filing the present Revision without impleading the proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21. It is also relevant to note that by ordering the applicant on for impleadment of proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21 will not cause any prejudice to them. They will be given an opportunity if filing written statement and participate in the trial etc. in the aforesaid suit before the trial Court. In the decision making process, if the Court, tribunal or authority deciding the case, has ignored vital evidence and thereby arrived at erroneous conclusion or has misconstrued the provisions of the relevant Act or misunderstood the scope of its jurisdiction the constitutional power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to set right such errors and prevent gross injustice to the party. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (2003) 10 SCC 456. 30. High Court is having power of superintendence to correct any error and procedural error and any manifest injustice both on facts and in law or evidence, or otherwise. The said principle was also held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Trimbock Gu Telong Vs. R.C.G. 1997 (2) SCC 437 and State of Kerala Vs. Sarojini Amma (2003) 8 SCC 526 31. As discussed supra, the suit is of the year 2009. The Role of the proposed defendant Nos. The said principle was also held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Trimbock Gu Telong Vs. R.C.G. 1997 (2) SCC 437 and State of Kerala Vs. Sarojini Amma (2003) 8 SCC 526 31. As discussed supra, the suit is of the year 2009. The Role of the proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21 in the present application to implead is very limited. With regard to the suit and amendments, they will be given an opportunity of filing written statement and participate in the trial etc. Therefore, according to this Court, even in the absence of proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21, this revision can be decided, by dispensing with or waiving notice on them. 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision is allowed. The order dated 22.07.2022 passed in I.A. No. 555 of 2017 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubanagar, is set aside and said Petition is allowed. The proposed amendments are also ordered to be carried out. The proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21 are impleaded as defendant Nos. 3 to 21 in O.S. No. 37 of 2009. Suit is of the year 2009. Therefore, learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar is directed to dispose of the suit O.S. No. 37 of 2009 strictly in accordance with law by putting the plaintiffs and the defendants and proposed defendant Nos. 3 to 21 on notice and affording them an opportunity. It shall decide the aforesaid suit by con dieting day-to-day proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision, shall stand closed.