ORDER:

Plaintiffs before the trial Court filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 09.12.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur in I.A.No.1663 of 2019 in O.S.No.73 of 2013.

2. Respondent herein is the defendant in the suit.

3. Smt. K.Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.

4. Point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned order dismissing a prayer for amendment in the plaint occasioned failure of justice requiring interference?

POINT:

5. O.S.No.73 of 2013 is a suit filed by five plaintiffs as against one defendant seeking for declaration of title and rights over certain immovable properties with a further prayer for mandatory injunction for removal of the structures that were erected in certain portions of plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession and for costs and such other reliefs.

6. Along with the plaint a schedule of properties is annexed and it depicts ‘A’ schedule, ‘B’ schedule, ‘C’ schedule and ‘D’ schedule. It is stated that ‘C’ schedule is part of ‘A’ schedule. It is also stated that ‘D’ schedule is part of ‘B’ schedule. Be it noted, for all the schedules there are definite boundaries that are given on all four sides and all these properties are shown as in Survey No.233/4 of K.M.Agraharam Village of Chittoor District. Defendant filed a written statement. Issues in the suit were settled, trial commenced and evidence on both sides was recorded. It is thereafter plaintiffs moved I.A.No.1663 of 2019 in O.S.No.73 of 2013 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. Plaintiffs moved this application stating that they have claimed their title in the suit tracing their title up to 1966 to Sri Jalli Subba Reddy and thereafter the title stood transferred in favour of Smt. R.S.Vanaja under a registered sale deed dated 30.09.1999 and thereafter from them the 1st plaintiff purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.2003. It is stated that the property that is available under all these registered documents is in Survey No.233/7. However, by a clerical mistake in the plaint it was printed as Survey No.233/4. Seeking permission to amend that the application is filed. Beneath the prayer portion of the petition the consequential amendment that is to be carried out in the plaint in terms of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice is also printed and the learned counsel for plaintiffs signed all of them. Respondent/defendant in that application filed a detailed counter stating that it is six years after filing of the suit they woke up and the petition does not disclose any due diligence on their part. It further mentioned that if this application is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit and the relief prayed for and would cause prejudice to the interest of the defendant. This application is filed after commencement of trial and the law does not permit any amendments after commencement of trial. That the petition does not contain consequential amendment which is in violation of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. If this petition is allowed, it would elongate the trial at once. For these reasons, defendant sought for dismissal of the petition. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the record, learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, dismissed the amendment application stating that at the fag end of the suit if this petition is allowed, it would definitely change the entire pleadings of both parties and thereby it changes the nature and character of the suit and that both parties will have to produce fresh evidence in this old suit of the year 2013. Since the parties also adduced their evidence and now at this stage when this application is filed, it shows that plaintiffs were not diligent in prosecuting the suit. That there