COMMON ORDER:

The civil revision petition No.1349 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders dated 04.05.2022 dismissing the I.A.No.97 of 2022 in O.S.No.404 of 2021 on the file of Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam filed under Section 153 of CPC to amend the name of respondent No.3 as “Shingam Naresh, Son of Late S.Jagadeswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about

35 years”.

2. The civil revision petition No.1351 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders dated 04.05.2022 dismissing the I.A.No.96 of 2022 in O.S.No.404 of 2021 on the file of Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vishakapatnam filed under Section 153 of CPC to amend the name of respondent No.3 as “Shingam Naresh, Son of Late S.Jagadeswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about

35 years”.

3. The petitioners filed suit against respondents No.1 to 6 for permanent injunction. As the suit summons and the notice in I.A.No.243 of 2021 filed in the suit seeking interim injunction were returned with the endorsement R3 died, the petition in I.A.No.97 of 2022 and I.A.No.96 of 2022 are filed. The petitioner contended that after return of the summons and notices their enquiry has revealed Contd…

that the correct name of person who interfered with their possession is “Shingam Naresh, Son of Late S.Jagadeswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years” but not “Shingam Jagadeswara Rao, son of late Appalanaidu, aged about 45 years” as mentioned in the plaint, and thus, it is a case of mistake in identity. With such contentions the proposed amendment is sought. The petitioners further stated that no further consequential amendments would arise on account of the amendment.

4. The petitions were opposed by filing counter of respondents/defendants denying the assertion that it is a case of mistake in identity and further stated that respondent No.3/D3 died on 12.12.2013, whereas the suit was filed subsequently and therefore the defendants strongly contended that suit is not maintainable against the dead person. It is further stated that when the petitioners took steps to bring the legal representatives of respondent No.3/D3, Court returned the petitions with the objection but the petitioners did not comply the objections. It is further contended that Section 153 CPC has no application when a plaintiff in suit for injunction intend to file suit against any other person. The respondents further stated that it is not the name of respondent No.3/D3 alone is proposed to be amended, but the whole identity of the person is intended to be changed by amendment and so the petition is liable to be dismissed. The respondents further contended that the petitioners did not given any explanation as to why the amendment is required.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that under the guise of the said misconception and ignorance without any valid reasons the petitioners cannot be permitted to introduce a new person into the suit proceedings against whom there is no cause of action pleaded in the suit and further that the proposed amendment is not for correcting the name of person but is to totally substitute a person for the other.

6. Having been aggrieved by the orders both the revision petitions were filed. Before proceeding further it is proposed to mention Section

153 CPC:

“153.General power to amend - The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding”

7. Though Section 153 CPC speaks of general power to amend, when there are specific provisions in CPC dealing with the intended amendment, by a general sweep the prayer sought for cannot be granted.

8. Since D3 died even before filing of this suit and the said fact is not in dispute, the suit or interim application filed agains