This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff/appellant (plaintiff’ for short) is directed against the orders dated 14-06-2012 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram of East Godavari District made in I.A.No.19 of 2012 in A.S.No.16 of 2009 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting to accord permission to amend the plaint to include a relief of declaration that the levy and demand of tax for assessment Nos. 10547 to 10551 for the properties bearing Door Nos.32-4-22/3, 32-4-22/4 and 32-4-22/5 are contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, `the Act’) and the Rules framed there under and that the said levy and demand are also arbitrary, illegal, capricious, and void and also opposed to principles of natural justice and judicial procedure and to further permit consequential amendments, as detailed in the petition.

2. (a) The facts relevant for consideration are as follows: “The revision petitioner filed a suit against the Municipality and another for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from collecting any property tax illegally from the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. In the plaint it was inter alia averred as follows: “The plaintiff, a registered society, was established to cater to the educational requirements of the people in and around Ramachandrapuram Municipality and that the educational institution is a purely service oriented educational institution being run without any profit motive and in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Government. Under Section 88 (1) (c) of the Act, the buildings which are used only for education purpose are exempted from levy of municipal tax. The 1st defendant/Municipality has no authority to impose tax on the educational institution recognised by the Government. The imposition of any such tax in violation of law is nonest in the eye of law and not binding on the plaintiff institution. Therefore, the plaintiff need not seek declaration to declare the demand notice as illegal as the demand is nonest. Suffice, if the plaintiff seeks perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from collecting any property tax illegally from the 1st plaintiff.” The 2nd defendant (State) had remained ex parte. The defendant/Municipality filed a written statement and resisted the suit. On merits and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The trial Court had followed the precedential guidance in a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court rendered on 28-12-2006 in a batch of Writ Petitions between Kakinada Education Society, Kakinada v. Kakinada Municipal Corporation (W.P.No.4214 of 2006 and batch), wherein this Court held as follows:

“Therefore, in our view, all the recognized educational institutions including hostel, public buildings and places used for charitable purposes are exempt under Section 85 of the Act provided those institutions, hostels, public buildings and places are used for charitable purposes.”

In fact, the trial Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, had also recorded a finding to the following effect:

“The contention of the plaintiff is that since the defendant has no authority to impose tax on the recognised educational institution, the said notices are void ab initio, and that the plaintiff need not challenge the said notices. But the said contention is untenable in view of the judgment of the High Court referred to supra.”

The trial Court had also held to the effect that a simple suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration that the demand notices issued by the defendant/Municipality are illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law.

2. (b) Aggrieved of the judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff had preferred the first appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil