Revision under Art.227 allows interference only in cases of jurisdictional errors or patent perversities, which were not found here.

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.512 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil, Judge, Vijayawada is the petitioner in the present Revision, filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India

2. This Revision challenges the order, dated 11.05.2023, dismissing I.A.No.668 of 2022, filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI, R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

3. Petitioner herein instituted the said suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Plaint schedule property is an extent of 369.26 square yards of site with Bangalore tiled house therein, bearing Assessment No.27 and D.No.53/1A, after sub-division now in R.S.No.53/1A 1B, Tummalapalem, Village and Gram Panchayat area, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

4. Admittedly, the suit is at the stage of arguments. On 21.11.2022, plaintiff - petitioner herein filed the present I.A.No.668 of 2022 under the provisions of Order VI R.17 r/w S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking amendment of plaint in the following manner:

"In para No. 14 after relief of "B" column and add "C" relief column by declaring the document dated 01.04.2002, bearing document No.1387/2002, executed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge Court on behalf of Badeti Nageswara row in favour of the defendant herein as "Ab - initio" and it is void document"

5. Respondent - defendant contested the aforesaid application by filing counter. The learned Senior Civil, Judge, by way of an order, dated 11.05.2023, dismissed I.A.No.668 of 2022. In the present Revision, filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India , challenge is to the validity and the legal sustainability of the same.

6. Heard Sri K.Sai Sree Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.V.S.S.Raghava Krishna Uppuluri, learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned in the present Revision is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order VI R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; that the learned Judge failed to consider the purport of Order VI, R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the application and failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on the Court; that it is a settled and well established principle of law that an amendment application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay; that, in view of the existence of due diligence, the Court ought to have allowed the application; that the application ought not to have been dismissed on the principle of res judicata as the petitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings; that the petitioner herein, immediately after the conclusion of the evidence of the defendant, filed the present application; that the respondent herein committed fraud on the Court and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent herein.

8. To bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments:

1. Revajeetu builders and developers v. Narayana Swamy and Sons and others (2009 (10) SCC 84 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2897)).
2. Haridas Aildas Thadani and others v. Godrej Rustom Kerman (1984 (1) SCC 668 : (AIR 1983 SC 319))
3. Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others v. Erssmo Jack dey sequeria (Dead) through LRs (2012 All. SCR 1096 : (AIR 2012 SC 1727)).

9. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the questioned order is not amena