A party who has been granted permission to amend their pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must file the amended pleadings within the prescribed time limit. If the party fails to do so, they must seek an extension of time under Section 148 CPC.

JUDGMENT

M.Venkata Ramana, J. - This civil revision petition is presented against the order of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Hindupur, dated 20.02.2020, in IA.No.488 of 2018 in OS.No.21 of 2011.

2. The above petition was filed under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C requesting leave to file additional pleadings in the nature of additional written statement.

3. Defendants 1 to 4 are the petitioners. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the respondents 1 to 6 and whereas defendants 5 to 17 and 19 are the respondents 7 to 20 herein. Respondents 7 to 20 are not necessary parties to this revision petition, according to the petitioners.

4. Respondents 1 to 6 as well as their predecessor, Sri T.S. Mohanraju Guptha instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the other respondents and the petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Alternatively, they sought a decree for partition and to cancel certain sale deeds.

5. Both the parties have let in evidence in the matter and the suit was coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petition in IA.No.488 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners for the relief stated above.

6. The record further reveals that the plaint was amended to answer the contentions raised in the written statement, more than once, last of such orders was passed as per the material available at this stage, adding paras 13 A and 13 B as per orders of the trial Court in IA.No.133 of 2013, dated 01.05.2018.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners filed IA.No.474 of 2018 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement to plead certain further facts in reply to the amendment of the plaint. It was allowed on 18.09.2018. It is also admitted that the petitioners did not amend the written statement within 14 days in terms of Order VI Rules 17 & 18 CPC. No extension of time apparently was sought in terms of Section 148 CPC read with Order VI Rule 18 CPC to carry out such amendment to the written statement.

8. At this stage, it is to be noted that IA.No.488 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners on 04.09.2018 and during pendency of I.A.No.474 of 2018.

9. In the affidavit filed in support of IA.No.488 of 2018 by the 2nd petitioner, there are certain averments in bad taste questioning the nature of amendment of the plaint calling them irrational or illegal. Such averments are absolutely uncalled for particularly having regard to the fact that the trial Court had considered those amendments and allowed the same at request of respondents 1 to 6. The concerned in the trial Court responsible for preparing this affidavit could have been more restrained and composed than making out such reprehensible presentation of pleadings in the affidavit as rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents in this revision petition. However, it is not known whether the pleadings sought to be brought out by additional written statement and by means of amendment to the written statement as sought in IA.No.474 of 2018 are one and the same or similar. It is also complained by learned counsel for the respondents that a copy of the proposed additional written statement was not enclosed to IA.No.488 of 2018. A copy of the same is not filed as a part of material papers in this CRP.

10. Heard Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Subba Raju Gupta, learned counsel representing Ms K. Sai Subha Sri, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6.

11. In the backdrop of the circumstances stated above, when it is possible to infer that the proposed pleadings sought to be introduced under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC are akin to the pleadings introduced by way of amendment to the written statement, it is not necessary that the petition in IA.No.488 of 2018 be considered. Learned trial Judge has taken into consideration the effect of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC and also Order VI Rule 18 CPC in coming to such conclusions and apparently was driven by the fact t