Point of Law: when the nature of the dispute in between these parties is taken into consideration, the proposed amendment shall be treated as an attempt to explain as to what went on between the parties with reference to one of the contentious issues between the parties namely Ex.A2 endorsement. When such an attempt is made by the respondent to bring these events on record by amendment of the plaint, it cannot be stated that there was any amount of delay in applying for such an amendment

ORDER :

This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in I.A.No.1355 of 2018 in O.S.No.46 of 2010, dated 11.12.2018 invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The defendants are the petitioners. The respondent is the plaintiff.

3. The respondent instituted the suit against the petitioners for specific performance of contract basing on an agreement for sale dated 25.09.2009, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property by the 1st respondent for a valuable consideration. The case of the respondent relevant for the present purpose as per the plaint is that Rs.20,00,000/-was paid by her to the 1st defendant, at his request and whereby, a conditional agreement of consent was executed on 25.09.2009. The petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record, as per orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.38027 and 38028 of 2014 dated 31.01.2014. The petitioners 5 to 8 were also added subsequently.

4. The suit has almost come to a close and stated to be at the stage of arguments. At this stage, the respondents filed I.A.No.1355 of 2018 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to permit her to amend the plaint as under:

‘Para No.6D:

1. The defendants consented for the proposal submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is ready to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to D2 to D4 covered under Ex.A2 endorsement, if ultimately suit is decreed she will not press into service Ex.A2 in the suit.

2. Now the plaintiff is herewith paying Rs.10 lakhs through Demand Draft drawn in favour of defendants 2 to 4 i.e. T.Sarojamma, T.Suresh Babu and T.Sarala and they have to execute registered sale deed for 42 cents of site as mentioned in the schedule of this plaint.

3. It is submitted that, beneath the cause of action at Para 7, para 7a is to be added as, “that the plaintiff is now ready to pay Rs.10 lakhs as per the common order passed in civil revision petitions 4396, 6907 and 6965 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of AP as well order passed by this court in I.A.No.666/ 2018 in O.S.No.46/2010 and the defendants have to execute registered sale deed without pressing into service Ex.A2 as per orders dated mentioned in above common orders of Hon’ble High Court of A.P.”

5. The reason assigned by the respondent to amend the plaint is the outcome in C.R.P.Nos.4396, 6907 and 6965 of 2017, by an order dated 16.02.2018 and review of the said order in Review I.A.No.1 of 2018 dated 06.04.2018. It is also the contention of the respondent that on account of consent given by learned counsel for the respondent in the above civil revision petitions agreeing to pay Rs.10,00,000/-, without pressing her claim under Ex.A2 endorsement on the revese of the suit agreement of sale, as to receipt of Rs.20,00,000/-and in view of the later order passed by this Court then at Hyderabad, it became necessary to bring out such an amendment to the plaint.

6. On behalf of petitioners 2 AND 8, the above petition was resisted in the trial Court filing a counter, mainly contending that the proposed amendment is highly belated being sought at the stage of arguments and that if it is permitted, it would take away admissions made by the respondent in the pleadings introducing a new case. It was also contended in the trial Court that the amendment cannot be permitted on account of different and inconsistent pleas, making departure from the original pleadings and particularly, considering their stand that they have been disputing execution and payment of Rs.10,00,000/-there under. Referring to the orders passed by this Court in the civil revision petition as well as review petition, it was further contended that this Court did not permit the respondent either to amend the plaint or alter the nature of this pleading.

7. Basing on the material and contentions advanced on behalf of these parties, upon consideration, learned trial Judge accepted the request of the respondent permitting amendment. Learned trial Judge has t