ORDER :

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the orders dated 14.08.2019, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District, passed in IA.No.718 of 2019 in OS.No.169 of 2013 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for brevity) requesting to permit him to amend the plaint as described in the memo attached thereto.

2. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Mr. M. Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Respondents 1 to 10 are shown to be not necessary parties to this revision. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.

3. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the request for amendment, in brief, is that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction. Defendants 1 to 10 remained ex parte in the suit. Defendants 11 and 12 filed written statements separately and contested the suit. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property having purchased the same from its lawful owner, the Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., through a registered sale deed and the plaint schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff on 13.09.2006. When the defendants tried to encroach the property, the present suit was filed. Defendants 11 and 12 filed written statement with a plea that the plaint schedule property belongs to American Baptist Foreign Mission Society and that the 11th defendant is its custodian, that the Property Association of Baptist Churches Pvt. Ltd., has no right or title over the plaint schedule property and its Additional Executive Director colluded with the plaintiff and filed O.S.No.118 of 2005 with a mala fide intention to grab the plaint schedule property. Though defendants referred to various court proceedings, they did not file even a piece of paper in support of their contention. Further, all the defendants, with an intention to grab the plaint schedule property, got filed O.S.No.191 of 2017 for a declaration that the sale deeds relating to the plaint schedule property as null and void and for other reliefs. The plaintiff herein is the 4th defendant in the said suit. Defendants 11 and 12 have recently trespassed into the plaint schedule property with a view to dispossess the plaintiff. Since the present suit is for permanent injunction only, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint to include the relief of declaration of title also.

(b) The case against respondent No.10 is dismissed as abated on his death. However, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 10 to the effect that on receipt of notices in the suit, defendants 11 and 12 filed an elaborate written statement stating that the vendor of the plaintiff has no valid right, title and permission from the competent authority to file the suit. The petition seeking amendment is barred by limitation. The plaint schedule property is in continuous and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the church authorities and that the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The defendants have no necessity to trespass into the schedule property. The plaintiff, in order to obtain favourable orders from the Court, intentionally filed suit against defendants who, later, remained ex parte. The petition is liable to be rejected.

(c) The 11th defendant filed counter opposing the petition and contending that the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and got examined one more witness as PW2. The 11th defendant was examined as DW1. The suit is coming for cross examination of DW2. The original owner of the plaint schedule property is American Baptist Foreign Mission Societ