Point of law: High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have flouted.

ORDER :

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.1041 of 2019 in O.S.No.29 of 2015 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda District at Suryapet, wherein the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, seeking permission to amend the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 5/defendant Nos.2 to 5 and perused the record.

3. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent No.1/defendant No.1, there is no representation on his behalf.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the Court below erroneously dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application vide impugned order dated 03.11.2020, without following the principles laid down under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. It is submitted that in the subject suit, during cross-examination of PW.1-petitioner/plaintiff, certain material facts with regard to the execution and registration of sale deeds by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 have come up and that lead to filing of the subject amendment application seeking cancellation of those sale deeds and declaring them as null and void. The said amendment is within time. Further, there is no change in material facts. It is also contended that the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the subject matter of the suit and ultimately prayed to allow the revision petition as prayed for. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in Kovvuri Ramakrishna Reddy vs. Padala Satyanarayana Reddy, 2012 (5) ALD 56.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5/ defendant Nos.2 to 5 would submit that in Para 6 of the plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff specifically mentioned about the execution and registration of sale deeds by the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff that he came to know about the execution and registration of sale deeds only at the time of his cross-examination (P.W.1), is unsustainable. The revision petitioner ought to have been diligent in drafting the plaint and seek cancellation of sale deeds. The suit was filed on 16.09.2015, whereas the subject application seeking amendment was filed on 28.11.2019, which is beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed in Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court below rightly dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application vide impugned order dated 03.11.2020 and ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision petition. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in Ankam Govindamma v. Syed Shafeeullah, (2018)4 ALT 421 and South Konkan Distilleries and another v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and others, (2008)14 SCC 632.

6. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the impugned order dated 03.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.1041 of 2019 in O.S.No.29 of 2015 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda District at Suryapet, is liable to be set aside and consequently, the subject I.A.No.1041 of 2019 be allowed as prayed for?”

7. POINT:- As seen from the material placed on record, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the subject suit in O.S.No.29 of 2015 against the respondents/defendants, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.09.2012 in respect of the suit schedule property. During pendency of the said suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the subject I.A.No.1041 of 2019 seeking amendment of the plaint. The Court below after hearing both sides, vide impugned order dated 03.11.2020, dismissed the subject application.

8. The main contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that he came to know about the execution and registration of subject do