SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Boppana Hema Sridhar – Appellant
Versus
Boppana Basava Kutumba Rao – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1131 of 2021
Decided On : 31-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Venkateswarlu Kolla.
For the Respondent: Y. Subrahmanyam.

An amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed even if it changes the nature of the suit, provided that the petitioners have exercised due diligence in filing the amendment petition.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER VI RULE 17 - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - ENCROACHMENT OF LAND - DELAY IN FILING AMENDMENT PETITION - DUE DILIGENCE - CHANGE OF NATURE OF SUIT - COURT'S DISCRETION - REVISION PETITION - CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2020, DATED 23-07-2021.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of 0.54 cents of land. After the suit was filed, the defendant encroached upon 0.12 cents of the suit land. Plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for declaration of title and possession in respect of the encroached land. The trial court dismissed the amendment petition holding that the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit and that the case of the petitioners will not fall within the ambit of ‘due diligence’ to permit the amendment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the amendment petition. The court observed that the proposed amendments were consequential to the subsequent events after filing of the suit and that the petitioners had exercised due diligence in filing the amendment petition immediately after the encroachment by the defendant. The court further held that the change in the nature of the suit from a suit for permanent injunction to a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was not a bar to allowing the amendment.

Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the amendment petition? 2. Whether the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit? 3. Whether the petitioners had exercised due diligence in filing the amendment petition?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the amendment petition. The court observed that the proposed amendments were consequential to the subsequent events after filing of the suit and that the petitioners had exercised due diligence in filing the amendment petition immediately after the encroachment by the defendant. 2. The court held that the change in the nature of the suit from a suit for permanent injunction to a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was not a bar to allowing the amendment. 3. The court held that the petitioners had exercised due diligence in filing the amendment petition.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial court dismissing the amendment petition.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful plaintiffs is directed against the orders, dated 26.02.2020, of the Junior Civil Judge, Muvva, dismissing I.A. No. 113 of 2020 (Old I.A. No. 1268/2018) in O.S. No. 95 of 2019 (old O.S. No. 96 of 2016) filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri Y. Subramanyam, learned counsel for respondent/defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:

    (a) The plaintiff No. 1 is a private employee in the State of Odisha and as such, the affairs of his agricultural property are being taken care of by his father, 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff. The respondent/ defendant tried to trespass into and occupy the suit land on 17.06.2018 at about 9 A.M. But the 2nd petitioner thwarted the attempt of the respondent and the respondent went away. On 18.06.2018, the respondent got filed a false police complaint against the 2nd petitioner through his wife and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No. 90 of 2018 of Kuchipudi P.S. Subsequently, on 27.07.2018, in the absence of the petitioners, the respondent again highhandedly transplanted paddy seedlings in an extent of Ac. 0.12 cents, i.e. Ac. 0.09 cents, in the south and Ac. 0.03 cents on the east of the schedule property, by encroaching the same and merged into his lands on both sides by forming new boundary bund to some extent on southern side, removed to a certain extent of eastern bund in south east corner, and altered to some extent remaining eastern boundary bund and a stone was implanted on south east corner by him to suit his false encroachment, without having any right. The total extent of land encroached is Ac. 0.12 cents which is shown in ‘B’ schedule property. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to file this petition seeking amendment to include the reliefs of declaration of title and also possession in respect of said Ac. 0.12 cents. The cause of action for inclusion of these two reliefs arose only subsequent to filing of the above suit, i.e. on 17.06.2018 and 27.7.2018. The 1st petitioner is also entitled to future mesne profits, as an average yearly income of Rs. 5,000/- will be yielding through ‘B’ schedule property.

(b) The amendment sought for by the plaintiffs read as under:

“(a) In the plaint schedule for the heading of “plaint Schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiff ‘A’ schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiffs” is to be substituted.

(b) To add the plaint ‘B’ schedule as follows:

‘B’ schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiffs

“Description of the land situated in the village of Bhatlapenumarru, Movva Sub-Registry, Krishna District. R.S. No. 555/3 Ac. 0.12 cents = 0.048 Htrts of wet land.

Boundaries:

East: Land of the defendant in R.S. No. 555/4

South: Land of the defendant in R.S. No. 555/5

West: Land of C.Santosh Kumar in R.S. No. 552 and land of the 1st plaintiff in R.S. No. 555/3

North: Land of the 1st plaintiff in R.S. No. 555/3.”

(c) After Para No. 12 of the plaint, the Para No. 12-A to be added as follows:

“(12-A) The 1st plaintiff came to know through the 2nd plaintiff that the defendant had tried to trespass into and occupy the suit land on 17.6.2018 at about 9.00 A.M. But, the 2nd plaintiff thwarted the attempt of the defendant and the defendant went away. On 18.06.2018 the defendant got filed a false police complaint against the 2nd plaintiff through his wife and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No. 90/2018 of Kuchipudi P.S. Subsequently, during the absence of both the plaintiffs, on 27-7-2018, defendant highhandedly transplanted paddy seedlings in a total extent of Ac. 0.12 cents, i.e. Ac. 0.09 cents on the south and Ac. 0.03 cents on the east of the schedule property, by encroaching the same and merged into his lands on both sides by forming new boundary bund to some extent on southern side and removed to a certain extent of eas

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top