The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment to the written statement should be necessary for the effective adjudication of the dispute and should not be used as a tactic to protract the litigation.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Berhampur in C.S. No.224 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the trial court rejected the application of the defendant nos.5 and 6, petitioners herein, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of written statement.

2. Plaintiff-Opposite party no.1 instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction impleading opposite party nos.2 to 7 and petitioners as defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property originally belonged to one C. Annapoornamma. She sold the land to Pakala Gopal Rao by means of a registered sale deed no.1396/1913. Thereafter, Pakala Gopal Rao sold the land to Nyapati Venkata Subhadramma on 16.09.1917. Nyapati Venkata Subhadramma sold Ac.1.25 dec. of land to the trustee of Sri Venkateswara Mahaprabhu by means of a registered sale deed dated 03.02.1922. Nyapati Venkata Subhadramma died on 15.05.1947. After her death, the deity is in possession of the land. On 27.09.1947, the Commissioner of Endowments accorded permission to the trustees of the deity to lease out the land. The trustees of the deity had leased out the land to the defendant no.8, Association, on 3.10.1962. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar initiated suo motu O.E.A. Case No.83/2001 in respect of the land in question pursuant to the notification no.57677/R, dated 06.12.2000. The O.E.A. Collector settled the land in favour of defendant no.8 on 31.08.2001 after observing all formalities. In the year 1988, Dandapani Nayak, husband of defendant no.1 and father of defendant nos.2 to 4, claimed that he acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. Defendant no.8 instituted T.S. No.109/88 in the court of the Munsif, Berhampur. The suit was dismissed. It was held that Dandapani Nayak had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. No appeal was filed. Dandapani Nayak died in the year 2005. Defendant no.8 sold the land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- for welfare of the Association. Possession of the land was duly delivered to him. Defendant nos.1 to 7 attempted to trespass over the land, for which a proceeding under Sec.144 Cr.P.C. has been initiated. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the releifs mentioned supra.

3. The defendant nos.1 and 2 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The defendant nos.5 and 6, petitioners, filed written statement pleading inter alia that their vendors are successors of Dandapani Nayak. After death of Dandapani Nayak, the vendors have succeeded to the property. Dandapani Nayak has forcibly occupied the suit site. Defendant no.8 filed C.S. No.109/88 for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed holding that Dandapani Nayak was in possession and enjoyment of the house site from the year 1978. The Association is not in possession of the land. Thereafter the Association has filed T.A. No.51/91 before the District Judge, Ganjam at Berhampur, which was transferred to the court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Berhampur and renumbered as T.A. No.18/93. The said appeal having been dismissed, the Association filed S.A. No.213/1996 before this Court. The appellant withdrew the second appeal on 19.12.2009. Thus possessory title of Dandapani Nayak was confirmed. Dandapani Nayak was in possession of the suit property and after him the successors were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property and as such they have perfected title by way of adverse possession. The settlement of land was not with the knowledge of the vendors of the defendants, nor the defendant nos.5 and 6. The defendant no.8 in connivance with the plaintiff has influenced the Revenue Inspector, Bhapur, whereafter suo motu O.E.A Case No.83/2001 was initiated by the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar illegally settled the land without following the due procedure.

4. The trial court framed issues. The