IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to pleadings that do not introduce new claims may be allowed even after the trial has commenced, emphasizing judicial discretion in such matters.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar in I.A. No. 938 of 2018 in O.S. No. 819 of 2007, where-under the petition filed by the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 7 to amend the written statement was allowed.

2. Heard Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Naveen Kumar, learned representing Sri K.P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioners herein are plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in O.S. No. 819 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S. No. 819 of 2007 before the Court below.

4. Brief facts of the case:

4.1. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S. No. 819 of 2007 before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking declaration to declare them as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property i.e. land admeasuring Ac. 2.12 gts. in Sy. No. 105/12/E, situated at Nagireddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property and also sought other relief of declaration to declare the illegal entries crepted in the name of Muthaiah, Bantu Shivaiah, Bantu Shankaraiah, in the pahani for the year 1955-58, 1960-61, 1964-65, 1966-67 and thereafter in the subsequent year as and when the names of third parties appeared and the name of Cherka Narsimhulu in the pahani for the year 1997-98, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003.

4.2. In the said suit, the defendants filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiffs. When the suit is posted for defendants’ evidence, the defendants have filed application i.e. I.A. No. 938 of 2018, seeking amendment of written statement by adding paragraph Nos. 8, 9 and 10. The Court below allowed the application, by its order dated 20.12.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the present revision petition.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that after completion of plaintiffs’ evidence and when the suit is posted for defendants’ evidence, at that stage, the defendants have filed application seeking amendment of written statement and the same is contrary to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. as the trial of the suit was already commenced. He further contended that the amendment sought by the defendants is going to alter the nature of the suit and they filed the application to drag on the proceedings, especially the defendants have not stated any reasons why they have not filed the application before framing of issues or atleast before commencement of the trial. In such circumstances, the Court below ought to have dismissed the application.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that the defendants have not withdrawing any admission made in the written statement nor introducing any new case and they are only elaborating the pleadings, which are already pleaded in the written statement. By virtue of the said amendment, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiffs. The defendants have stated reasons in support of application and the Court below after considering the contentions of the respective parties and also taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others, 2007 SCC Online SC 53, Sushil Kumar Jain vs. Manoj Kumar and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2544 and Baldev Singh and Others vs. Manohar Singh and Another, AIR 2006 SC 2832 rightly allowed the application and there is illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by t