Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20264
APHC010488652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460 AT AMARAVATI ]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1850/2022 Between:
Sree Gouri Shankara Sree Parvathi Devi, Sree Lakshmi ...PETITIONER( Venkteswara Temple Development Committee and Others S)
AND Mangali Rajamma ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1 C . SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent:
1 RAMESH . N The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Civil Revision Petition No.1850 of 2022
ORDER:
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 26.07.2022 in I.A.No.552 of 2022 in O.S.No.38 of 2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda.
2. The Petitioners are the Plaintiffs. A suit was initially filed for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction. Subsequent to the institution of the suit and prior to the cross of Plaintiffs’ witnesses, an application was filed to amend the plaint by including the relief of Mandatory Injunction and for consequential possession. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the Petitioners contended that the Defendant trespassed into the Plaint Schedule Property recently and had erected a varandah with asbestos sheets and therefore, an amendment was sought. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, the cause of action will change and on account of the fact that specific date of construction was not mentioned in the amendment petition filed for mandatory injunction as the same has to be filed within a period of
3 years. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Ramesh N, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. The relief that is sought by the Petitioners being the consequential relief, the nature of suit will not be altered as the suit for declaration of title remains as such. Apart from that the application for amendment was filed before commencement of effective trial i.e., cross examination of PW.1 and the respondent cannot take a plea that prejudice would be caused. As regards of possession, the issue of limitation may not be a ground to reject amendment at this stage and in the facts of this case, as the said issue is requires a finding of fact. The reason given by the trial Court cannot be sustained and the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. The respondent is at liberty to file Additional Pleadings if so advised.
5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Order of the trail Court dated 26.07.2022 in I.A.No.552 of 2022 in O.S.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda is set aside. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous Petition, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 13.11.2024 eha THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRP NO.1850 of 2022 Dt.13.11.2024 eha U
