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
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:
(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
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 peti....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of proceedings to determine the real controversy.
An amendment of the plaint may be allowed even after a long delay, if it is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real controversy in the dispute.
The Court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for just decision of the case and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.