IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to pleadings are permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC if they do not change the nature of the suit and are necessary for justice, even if filed after a delay.

ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2019 in I.A.No.125 of 2019 in O.S. No.199 of 2007, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C.s & S.T.s (POA) Act-cum-XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The parties hereto are referred to as they were arrayed in the Suit.

3. The petitioners/plaintiffs, filed suit for a declaration that the gift deed dated 10.10.2013 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is void and non-est in law. It is contended that the 1st defendant gifted the subject property in favour of the plaintiffs in the ratio of 60:20:20, as per Muslim law, in the presence of the Chartered Accountant. The plaintiffs accepted the gift, and the Chartered Accountant, Sri C.R. Hemanth Kumar, also executed a notarized affidavit. The 1st defendant confirmed the same through her letter dated 07.06.2002 addressed to the plaintiffs. It is stated that subsequently, while effecting the settlement of properties belonging to the families of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs came to know about a registered gift settlement deed dated 10-10-2003 alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. It is contended that the plaintiffs after issuing legal notice dated 27.03.2007, to the defendants filed Suit questioning settlement of the property for declaration that the gift settlement deed dated 10.10.2003, in favour of the 2nd defendant as void and non-est. The reliefs sought in the Suit are as follows:

“The plaintiffs therefore pray that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree in their favour and against the defendants:

a) granting a declaration that the deed dt.10.10.2003 (Doct.No.2140/03) executed contrary to the plaintiffs interest is illegal, inoperative and void.

b) Send information of this decree of cancellation of gift deed in favour of D-2 to his –--as per Section 31 of the SPR Relief.

c) granting costs of the suit and d) granting such other or further reliefs as are deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The defendants filed their written statement in the Suit. The plaintiffs filed an application in I.A. No.1179 of 2014 seeking the following amendment to the Suit prayer.

“Para VI (a)(i) – grant a consequential relief of redelivery of vacant possession of the schedule mentioned property by the Defendants to the plaintiffs.

Para VI (a) (ii) – send information of the Decree of cancellation of the Gift Deed in favour of D-2 to the Registrar as per Sec.31 of the S.P. Relief Act.”

5. The said application was allowed in part, observing that as the defendants are disputing the title of the Suit property, the plaintiffs necessarily to file a Suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the Suit property. Against the order in I.A. No.1179 of 2014, the Plaintiff initially filed a Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 2808 of 2017 before the High Court. However, the plaintiffs have withdrawn the Revision Petition with liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial Court. The Plaintiffs thus filed the subject I.A. No. 125 of 2019 seeking amendment of the prayer in the Suit to include a prayer for declaration and for consequential relief of delivery of possession of the Suit property.

6. The defendants filed their counter stating that filing of the Suit itself is belated, as the gift settlement deed is dated 10-10-2003. After 11 ½ years of filing of the Suit, the instant I.A. was filed, which would prejudice their rights over the suit property. It was further contended that the 1st defendant filed written statement in the suit objecting to the maintainability of the Suit stating that without seeking a declaration, the Suit would not be maintainable, however the plaintiffs were not diligent in correcting the mistake in time. The 1st defendant further contended that the liberty sought by the Plainti