Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement must not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action, and must demonstrate due diligence.

ORDER :

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.

The petitioners in S.R.O.P.No.6 of 2017 (hereinafter called as 'original petition') on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, filed O.P. under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001, to declare the standing committee resolution dated 06.06.2017 in “re-appointing” the 1^st respondent in the Original Petition as Pastor, as illegal, ultra vires, against the principles of natural justice and, consequently, prayed to set aside the appointment of the 1^st respondent by name Rev. Doraballi John Augustine, as Pastor.

2. The 1^st respondent in the original petition made an application to the society, JMB Church to appoint him as Pastor and his appointment was validated with certain conditions through resolution dated 06.06.2017. The said resolution was assailed in the aforesaid original petition stipulating some conditions, which are irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The 1^st respondent as well as other respondents have filed their counters in the original petition and contended that the very filing of the petition is not maintainable and raised several other grounds for dismissal of the original petition filed by the petitioners herein.

4. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.853 of 2024 in S.R.O.P.No.6 of 2017 for amendment of the prayer in the main petition on the ground that instead of “appointment” of 1^st respondent, it was mentioned as “re-appointment”, therefore, the word “re-appointment” as appeared in the first prayer, has to be substituted with word „appointment‟ by way of amendment in prayer column.

5. The 1^st respondent herein filed counter in I.A.No.853 of 2024 and the relevant portion of the counter is hereby extracted:

"The present S.R.O.P., filed by the 5 petitioners on 21.12.2017 along with interlocutory application. On contest, interlocutory application was dismissed by this Honourable Court, the petitioners went to Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh and C.R.P., also disposed off with specific directions. This respondent filed his counter in the main S.R.O.P., on 13.2.2019. Subsequently on 31.7.2019 the S.R.O.P., was dismissed for default. The present counsel Sri K.R.R. Garu filed vakalat on 2.8.2019 in the above matter. The above matter restored on 29.11.2019, then on 13.12.2019 the evidence of 2 petitioner as P.W.1 was filed and the P.W.1 filed additional chief examination affidavit on 13.06.2022, P.W.1 was cross-examined at length and subsequently on 13.2.2023 the P.W.1 also filed additional chief examination affidavit, then also P.W.1 was cross examined. P.WE. 2 evidence was filed on 12.5.2023 and cross examined him. Subsequently the evidence of this respondent as R.W. 1 filed and the R.W. 1 was also cross- examined at length by the petitioners, subsequently the evidence of 3^rd respondent was filed as R.W.2 and R.W.2 also cross-examined by the petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners and respondents arguments also submitted and written arguments also filed by both parties. While the above matter coming up for submitting arguments by the petitioners, the petitioners came forward with the present petition to amend the word “re-appointment” as “Appointment”."

6. The 1^st respondent also further asserted that the proposed amendment changes the entire cause of action of the main petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the I.A. filed for amendment of the main prayer of the petition.

7. The learned I Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, after hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, has dismissed the I.A., vide order dated 11.11.2024, observing that:

"The amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of trial unless the petitioners unable to bring the facts with due diligence and has not accepted the contentions made by the petitioners that the proposed amendment is only in the nature of rectifying the typographical mistake and it will not create any new cause of action or question of adducing furt