Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to be liberally allowed if necessary for real controversy, no prejudice to other side, even post-written statement but pre-trial, to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2023 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.411/2023 and Civil Revision Petition No.417/2023 by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, the appellants are before this Court.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants herein are the owners in possession of agricultural land in Sy Nos.19/2 and 18/5 to an extent of Ac.2-75 cents and Ac.0-71 cents respectively, totally admeasuring Ac.3-49 cents situated at Nadigudem village and mandal, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). The respondent herein, having his land on the northern boundary of the suit property, allegedly started causing interference with the appellants’ possession.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a suit bearing O.S. No.52/2016 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, Telangana (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’), for permanent injunction restraining the respondent and his agents from causing interference with the possession of the appellants over the suit property. Along with the aforesaid suit, an application bearing I.A. No. 230/2016 was filed by the appellants, seeking ex parte temporary injunction against the respondent, which was allowed by the trial court.

5. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an application being I.A. No.719/2016 in I.A. No.230/2016 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make note of the physical features of the scheduled lands in view of the dispute with regard to its nature and boundaries. Trial Court, by docket order dated 07.02.2017, allowed the application filed by the respondent and appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appellants preferred a civil revision petition bearing C.R.P. No.861/2017 before the High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2017.

6. Meanwhile, the appellants preferred I.A. No.229/2017 in O.S. No.52/2016 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC;), seeking amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries, contending that due to an inadvertent error, the boundaries of Sy No.18/5 had not been mentioned. The trial court, by order dated 28.03.2019, permitted the appellants to amend the plaint schedule boundaries by incorporating the boundaries to both survey numbers as prayed for.

7. Subsequently, another application bearing I.A. No.515/2022 was filed by the appellants in I.A. No.230/2016 in O.S. No.52/2016, seeking amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries in the application for temporary injunction. Having regard to the earlier order dated 28.03.2019 passed in I.A. No.229/2017, whereby amendment of schedule boundaries in the plaint was allowed, the trial court, by order 20.12.2022, also allowed the amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries in the application seeking temporary injunction, i.e., in I.A. No. 230/2016.

8. Aggrieved by the orders dated 28.03.2019 and 20.12.2022 passed by the trial court, respondent preferred revision petitions bearing CRP Nos.411 and 417 of 2023 before the High Court. By way of the impugned order dated 12.06.2023, the High Court allowed the aforesaid revision petitions and set aside the orders dated 28.03.2019 and 20.12.2022 passed by the trial court in I.A. No.229/2017 and I.A. No.515/2022 respectively; whereby the appellants were permitted to amend the plaint schedule boundaries. I