P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. S. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner in both these revisions and Sri Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel representing respondents in both the C. R. Ps.

( 2 ) THE C. R. Ps. are filed by Gunda Venkata Lakshmi Kumari sarita, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 103/99 on the file of II Additional district Judge, Vijayawada, aggrieved by the orders made in i. A. Nos. 299/2005 and 1781/2005. The applications had been filed praying for the amendment of the plaint requesting to amend the valuation and also to add certain items said to have been deleted initially for want of production of the Valuation Certificate. It appears that the learned Judge made a common order disposing of several applications but however these two C. R. P. S had been preferred as against the orders made in the I. A. s referred to supra praying for amendment of the plaint.

( 3 ) THE facts appear to be not in serious dispute or controversy. This is a partition action filed by the daughter and it appears that the father is no more. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that she had shown vacant site in item No. 3 of the plaint a schedule but however had endorsed that item be deleted for present as Valuation Certificate could not be furnished. It was also stated in the affidavit that she was advised that the Valuation certificate which is expected to be produced is only for the purpose of jurisdiction for the existing properties and even if the valuation of these properties deleted also to be taken into consideration, the jurisdiction would not be altered inasmuch as under peculiar circumstances the said endorsement was made. She prayed for the reintroduction of the said items again to be included in the schedule and consequently further prayed for the amendment of the valuation specified in the plaint and other particulars.

( 4 ) SRI Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the petitioner is of an young age of about 20 years and under peculiar circumstances, may be for want of production of Valuation Certificate at the relevant point of time, a mistake was committed and having detected the bona fide mistake, again she is praying for introducing the said item which had been deleted. The bar either under Order II Rule 2 of C. P. C. or the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1 C. P. C. would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel would contend mat these aspects may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage and the same need not be considered while deciding these applications whether to amend the plaint or not. The learned counsel also would maintain that on the ground of mere delay in filing such applications, praying for amendment of the plaint, they cannot be dismissed. The Counsel placed reliance on K. RAM reddy v. K. KANTHA REDDY and ORS. 1997 (5) ALD 98

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Srinivasa Rap, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents would maintain that reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned judge. The Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the petitioner-plaintiff had chosen to withdraw this item, without atleast praying for leave of the Court, the said item cannot be again reintroduced and shown in the schedule by way of amendment of the pleading. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the impugned order and the reasons recorded in relation thereto and would maintain that both Order II rule 2 and Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure will operate as a bar. Hence, the Counsel would contend that the provisions of the Order VI Rule 17 of the Code cannot override the other specific bars imposed by Order II Rule 2 and also Order XXII rule 1 of the Code aforesaid and hence the impugned order in fact is in accordance with law and hence the C. R. P. S are liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 7 ) IT is no doub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document