ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order and decree, dated 06.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.240 of 2018 in O.S.No.72 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.72 of 2015. The said I.A.No.240 of 2018 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint.

3. Heard Sri P.V. Raghuram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Balaji Medimalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inadvertently or by mistake he has mentioned in the plaint that cart track passing through Thenepalle village sy.No.337/1 which is shown as ABCDEF in village map and the same is shown as “B” schedule instead of cart track passing through the land in Sy.No.125 Ragala kunta and S.No.128 of Peta Agraharam and Sy.No.337/1 and Sy.No.335/1 village accounts.

5. On the other hand, respondents counsel while denying the averments made in the petition specifically contended that under the guise of amendment he wants to implead the property of this respondent in the “B” schedule after three years of filing of suit for wrongful gain. Further, he has purchased the full extent of property in Sy.Nos.125, 128/2, 128/1A, 128/1B and

128/3 and in fact there is no such Sy.No.128 on ground.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant has acquired the properties from the APIIC for construction of the factory under the name and style “Galla Foods Pvt Ltd.,”. The plaint „A‟ schedule property is situated towards West of Galla Foods Pvt Ltd. Further towards West and South of the plaint „A‟ schedule property, the defendant also acquired the property from APIIC. He further submits that recently, the respondent/defendant has constructed a compound wall on either side of the Road and also trying to close the road leading to the plaint “A‟ schedule property and the same is shown as “B” schedule in the plaint. Except the plaint „B‟ schedule road there is no other road to reach the plaint „A‟ schedule property for ingress and egress. In the village map it is clearly shown the „B‟ schedule road and the same is passing through S.No.125 and 128 and reached to the lands of the plaintiff in S.No.337/1 and 335/3. The petitioner is filing the village map which may be read as part and parcel of the plaint.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that now the petitioner wanted to include the property of the respondent in the “B” schedule after three years of filing of the suit for wrongful gain. The respondent has purchased the property of Sy.No.125, 128/2, 128/1A, 18/1B, 128/3 in its full extent in Peta Agraharam village. In fact there is no such Sy.No.128 on ground now. As it was subdivided long back and sold to the respondent by the Government for consideration and possession as delivered as it is total extents without any encumbrances. It is further stated that there is no such ABCDEF road existing on ground. A commissioner has also inspected the site locality and filed his report long back. The commissioner report with sketch clearly shows that there is no such road on existing as claiming by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon catena of decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported in Vijay Gupta versus Gagninder Kr.Gandhi and others1, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that :

“A reading of Order VI Rule 17 reveals the following:

(i) The provision uses the word "may" as well as "shall". They are, however, used in different contexts, and, therefore, no confusion arises as a consequence. The provision states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow amendment of the pleadings. The use of the word "may" is, in this context, clearly permissive and empowering in nature. It indicates that the Court is empowered, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow amendment of the pleadings. Add