Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 743 (AP)

Bezawada Mastan, S/o. Chinnodu v. Matcharla Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Gupta, S/o. Srinivasa Rao

2023-05-02

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2023
ORDER : Defendant in suit filed the above revision against the order dated 21.11.2022 in I.A.No.449 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Anakapalle. 2. Suit O.S.No.55 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.187 of 2015 under Order 39 rules 1 and 2, r/w section 151 of CPC to grant exparte ad-interim injunction. The Court ordered notice. as per the plaint, plaint schedule property is shown as vacant site, admeasuring 163.77 square yards in survey No.21/1, 22, 23, 24-1, 27-1 adjoining to house plot 78 in Pisinikada Village, Anakapalle Mandal. Later, plaintiff in the plaint requested the Court to close the interlocutory application. Recording the same, I.A.No.187 of 2015 was closed on 23.08.2021. 3. Defendant filed the written statement in July, 2015. In the written statement it was contended inter alia that, defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 01.04.2015. Defendant constructed house in the schedule property and, also constructed compound wall by obtaining permission from the local authority. It was further contended that, he also got electricity service connection No.1567 to the house constructed in the schedule property. 4. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.449 of 2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 on July, 2022. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was averred that, pending the suit, defendant started construction of structure step by step and completed the construction from the past 7 years from 2015 to 2022 and also constructed compound wall. Photographs are filed showing the development in the schedule property. Hence, amendment is sought to declare the sale deed under which the defendant claimed his title and possession of the suit schedule property is concocted and fabricated and does not bind the respondent and, also for mandatory interim injunction. 5. Defendant filed counter and opposed the application. Trial Court by order dated 21.11.2022 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that by filing written statement in July, 2015, it was contended about the construction made in the schedule property and also getting electricity connection. Application was filed seeking amendment in the year 2022 and the same is barred by limitation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that by filing written statement in July, 2015, it was contended about the construction made in the schedule property and also getting electricity connection. Application was filed seeking amendment in the year 2022 and the same is barred by limitation. He also would contend that trial Court without appreciating these facts allowed the application. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial Court. 9. The point for consideration is : Whether the amendment sought for by the plaintiff would change the nature of the suit and is barred by limitation? 10. Suit O.S.No.55 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction. Plaintiff also filed I.A.No.187 of 2015 seeking ad-interim injunction. However, the application was closed at the request of the plaintiff by order dated 23.08.2021. Defendant, by filing a written statement, contended purchase of the property and also the construction of house in the schedule property and also compound wall. The defendant, in fact, pleaded that he got electricity connection. 11. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking amendment, plaintiff averred that pending the suit, defendant started construction and the construction went on for 7 years and he completed the construction and hence, application is filed seeking amendment. The amendment sought by the plaintiff is to declare that the sale deed of the defendant does not bind the plaintiff and in fact, mandate for injunction. Plaintiff, in the plaint asserted title to the schedule property and also possession. 12. The proposed amendment, in view of the averments in the affidavit, is necessary and it will determine the lis between the parties judiciously. The change of nature of any claim shall not be considered as a change in the nature of the suit. The trial in the suit has not yet commenced. Hon’ble Apex Court time and again reiterated that pre-trail amendments which are necessary to adjudicate disputes are to be allowed. Trial court on a careful consideration allowed the application by a reasoned order. This court doesn’t find any illegality or perversity. 13. Since the suit was amended, the defendant is at liberty to file additional written statement by raising all the pleas. Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible keeping in view of the Circular issued by High Court to dispose of pre 2018 suits. 14. This court doesn’t find any illegality or perversity. 13. Since the suit was amended, the defendant is at liberty to file additional written statement by raising all the pleas. Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible keeping in view of the Circular issued by High Court to dispose of pre 2018 suits. 14. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.