The court emphasized the importance of doing substantial justice, the need for due diligence in seeking amendments after the commencement of the trial, and the limited jurisdiction of the court in allowing amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the orders, dated 16.11.2016, in I.A.No.909 of 2016 in O.S.No.1355 of 2011, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this application in I.A.No.909 of 2016 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ÇPC’) with a prayer for amendment of the plaint. The Court below has allowed the said application permitting the plaintiff to carry out the necessary amendments as prayed for. Assailing the said order, the sole defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds:

(i) The trial Court has grossly erred in allowing the application.

(ii) The proposed amendment has changed the nature of the suit which is not permissible.

(iii) The trial Court has erred in holding that plaintiff is not seeking any cancellation of document. In fact, a declaration was sought to the effect that the documents are null and void.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Detailed submissions have been made by the learned counsel for both the parties, which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer to in detail such submissions. However, the submissions so made have received due consideration of this Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. The defendant has filed his written statement, issues were settled. At that stage, this application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is filed for amendment of the plaint by introducing the subsequent events and also to amend the prayer portion.

6. Though initially the suit is filed for perpetual injunction, through the proposed amendment the plaintiff has prayed to amend the plaint by incorporating prayer (aa) after prayer (a) to the effect that the Sale Deed bearing Document No.2913 of 1980, dated 26.12.1980, in the office of SRO, Maredpally; Sale Deed bearing Document No.4870 of 1993, dated 30.08.1993, in the office of SRO, Maredpally; and the Sale Deed bearing Document No.1253 of 2006 dated 15.02.2006, in the office of SRO, Malkajgiri, and registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.1720 of 2011, dated 22.07.2011, in favour of M.Murali Krishna may be declared as null and void and not binding on him. However the defendant has raised objection to the effect that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit and it goes against the findings recorded in O.S.No.156 of 2000.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant seeks to submit that the following dates are very much crucial in considering that the plaintiff is not entitled for the proposed amendment. The original suit is filed in the month of June, 2011. In March, 2012, written statement is filed, whereas the present application with the proposed amendment for cancellation of registered documents is filed on 01.09.2016 i.e., after four years to the defendant filing the written statement with an allegation that in view of the averments in the written statement, amendment is necessary. He has further argued that evidence affidavit of P.W.1 is filed. The witness is to be cross-examined. There is no diligence on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that in view of the written statement filed by defendant, the proposed amendment is essential and unless suit is amended with the relief of cancellation of the said documents to the effect that they are not binding on the plaintiff, he would suffer irreparable injury and that proposed amendment is very much essential to avoid multiplicity of litigations.

9. The learned counsel for the defendant relied on the following judgments:

(i) Vasant Balu Patil and ot