ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram, in I.A. No. 370 of 2016 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 dated 20.02.2017, wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint said to be subsequent events occurred in the suit.

2. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court in brief is that he filed suit for injunction simplicitor against the respondent/defendant wherein he also sought for ad-interim injunction not to interfere boundary line wherein the respondent said to be received notice in injunction petition and also filed counter and written statement and he filed his chief examination affidavit and in the meanwhile the respondent with the help of his servants highhandedly laid pillars and iron fencing by encroaching plaint schedule property in the boundary lane towards north and western side. He submits that to substantiate his contention, he also filed photographs and Campac Disk to prove highhanded act of the respondent. He prays to amend the plaint seeking relief of mandatory injunction to remove the fencing towards north west side boundary of plaint schedule property.

3. For which respondent filed counter before the trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that the affidavit of the petitioner not disclosing circumstances contemplated under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. He submits that pillars and fencing on the north and west boundary of the schedule land was laid by him even by the date of filing of the suit and the petitioner came up with this petition to cover up the lacunaes in its pleadings. He prays to dismiss the petition.

4. The learned trial Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that the petitioner has not made a prayer to make consequently amendments as per Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice.

5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned trial Judge, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff stating that trial Court committed a serious mistake in arriving at conclusion that in view of inconsistent prayer in the affidavit and consequential amendment is not sought as per Rule 28 petition is dismissed which observation is not tenable. He has stated that trial Court failed to exercise the Jurisdiction vested in it. He prays to allow the petition.

6. I have heard both sides.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner intended to bring notice of the Court subsequent events by way of amendment of the plaint, which denied by the trial Court on hyper technical approach. He prayed to allow the petition.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent mainly contended that by the date of filing of the suit pillars laid and fencing on the north and west boundary of the plaint schedule property was existing which suppressed by the petitioner and filed suit. He prays to dismiss the petition.

9. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is:

“Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?”

POINT:

10. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which reads as under:

“17. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligenc