Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are impermissible unless due diligence is shown; plaintiffs failed to justify the late amendment request.

ORDER :

Subba Reddy Satti, J.

1. The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 02.02.2024 in I.A.No.294 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.292 of 2009 for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property by evicting the 1st defendant and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with plaint schedule property.

3. In the plaint, it was contended that the plaintiffs and their mother filed suit O.S.No.57 of 1973 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam for partition against their father's brothers and others. A preliminary decree was passed on 27.04.1974 for 1/3rd share. A final decree was passed on 19.08.1975. The Amin handed over the property to the plaintiffs on 30.12.1975. The defendants 2 to 16 executed sale deeds in favor of the 1st defendant in respect of Ac.0.62 cents and Ac.0.121/2 cents under two registered sale deeds dated 21.12.2001 on 24.04.2001 mistakenly, for part of the property fell to the share of plaintiffs, by showing wrong boundaries. The 1st defendant, a real estate businessman, occupied the plaint schedule property on 20.08.2009 and hence, the suit was filed.

4. The defendants 1, 6, and 10 filed separate written statements. Defendants 2, 3, 8, 9, 11 to 14 adopted the written statement filed by 10th defendant. The 5th defendant adopted the written statement filed by 6th defendant.

5. The 1st defendant asserted title to the property by virtue of registered sale deeds. Defendants 6 and 10 confirmed the sale deeds in favor of 1st defendant.

6. The trial in the suit was completed and posted for arguments. At that stage, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.294 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint and to add a certain portion at the end of Page No.4 of the plaint and prayer at (a).

7. In the affidavit filed in support of said petition, it was pleaded that the suit is posted for arguments, and on perusal of the plaint, due to inadvertence, the plaintiffs forgot to submit that the documents dated 21.12.2001 and 24.12.2001 executed by J.Janardhana Rao and another is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The said inadvertence is not willful or wanton and hence, the amendment was sought.

8. The 1st defendant filed a counter and opposed the application.

9. The trial Court by order dated 02.02.2024 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

10. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent.

11. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit. He would submit that due to inadvertence, the plaintiffs failed to mention the portion sought to be included by way of amendment.

12. Learned counsel for 1st respondent supported the order of the Court below.

13. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the order dated 02.02.2024 in I.A.No.294 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2009 suffers from illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

14. Suit O.S.No.292 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking the following relief:

a) Plaintiffs suit be decreed for recovery of the plaint schedule property after evicting the 1st defendant from the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiffs into vacant possession of the plaint schedule property as the 1st defendant has no right whatsoever in the plaint schedule property derived from the defendant;

b) For consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever.

15. In Paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was specifically contended that the defendants 2 to 16 and some others executed sale deeds in favor of the 1st defendant for an extent of Ac.0.62 cents and Ac.0.121/