High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is to ensure subordinate courts act within their authority; amendments to pleadings must be sought in good faith and with due diligence.

ORDER :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District in IA.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No.13 of 2016, dated 06.01.2023.

2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the revision petition that respondent No.2 is not a necessary party in the petition.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5 are the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, 5 and respondent No.1 is the respondent-defendant. Respondent No.2 is the petitioner No.4-plaintiff No.4 in IA.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No.13 of 2016.

4.1. Petitioners and respondent No.2 have filed IA.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No.13 of 2016 on 04.01.2023 under Section 151, Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) r/w Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice to amend the plaint for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit land in survey No.11/A admeasuring Acs.02-34 guntas.

4. 2. Petitioner No.2 has sworn the affidavit in IA No.9 of 2023 on his behalf and also on behalf of other petitioners stating that petitioner No.1 died on 19.06.2020. Thereafter, they came on record and from the date of purchase of the plaint schedule property by petitioner No.1 on 12.09.2001 they were in possession and doing cultivation by raising seasonal crops. Recently, they kept the said land fallow without raising any crops due to scarcity of water. The respondent No.1-defendant taking advantage of the patta standing in his name, with a malafide intention forcibly entered into the suit land in the month of November 2022 and illegally taken possession in spite of their protest, thereby they were forced to file the petition for amendment of prayer seeking relief of recovery of possession.

5. Respondent No.1-defendant has not filed counter and the learned trial Court has dismissed IA No.9 of 2023 on 06.01.2023 holding that the petition has been filed by the petitioners and respondent No.2 herein to fill up the lacunas that crept during the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the learned trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners and respondent No.2 herein for amendment of the plaint is illegal and vitiated by material irregularity. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that amendment application can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, the findings of the Court that the petitioners filed the application to fill up the lacunas is incorrect and also failed to see that respondent No.1-defendant forcibly entered into the suit land and occupied the same in the month of November, 2022 and has not denied the averments in the affidavit by filing counter. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that in view of subsequent events during pendency of the suit, it was necessitated to file the application for amendment of prayer in the suit and the amendment sought is only in respect of relief in the suit in view of subsequent events. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of P.Shekar Goud and others Vs. M/s Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt Ltd., rep. by its Managing Partner/Director, Mahabubnagar District , 2022 (4) ALT 716 (S.B.).

7.1. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable as the order of the learned trial Court do not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or any procedural impropriety or patent illegality. The suit is at the stage of cross-examination of DW.1. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Jai Singh a