Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of proceedings to determine the real controversy.

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.336 of 2024 in O.S.No.337 of 2015 by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge (Excise) Vizianagaram, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application filed Under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as petitioner and defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court in I.A.No.336 of 2024.

3) The petitioner-plaintiff initially filed O.S.No.337 of 2015 as against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession in respect of the suit schedule property, which is agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents from out of the total extent Ac.12.15 cents in Sy.No.171/1 of Sarika Village, Vizianagaram District.

4) The case of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is his exclusive property and he has been in possession and enjoyment in pursuance of the revenue records mutated in his name and that the respondents-defendants got their land on the northern side of his property. When the defendants tried to encroach into the petitioner’s land, he filed the present suit. During pendency of the suit, as the respondents-defendants encroached into the land of the petitioner-plaintiff and continuing in possession, he filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localize the schedule property and to note down the physical features. The trial Court was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the said purpose and the Advocate Commissioner surveyed the land with the help of Mandal Surveyor and noted down the physical features and in the said survey, it has come to light that an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents of schedule property was encroached by the respondents-defendants and the Commissioner submitted his report to that effect by enclosing a sketch prepared by the Mandal Surveyor, Vizianagaram. The said Advocate Commissioner was summoned to the Court and was examined as C.W.1 and the Advocate Commissioner’s report and rough sketch were marked as Exs.X.1 to X.3. Having come to know about the report and evidence of the Advocate Commissioner, the petitioner filed I.A.No.336 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. requesting the Court below to permit him to amend the plaint from one of injunction to declaration and recovery of possession.

5) The Trial Court upon hearing argument of both the counsel, dismissed the said I.A.No.336 of 2024 on the ground that the matter cannot be reopened at the fag end stage of arguments without assigning sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

6) When the present revision came up for admission on 13.12.2024, this Court has passed the following interim order.

“Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.337 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge (Excise), Vizianagaram till the next date of hearing.”

7) The said interim order has been extended from time to time.

8) During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contended that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit. As the respondents-defendants encroached the suit schedule property of the petitioner-plaintiff during pendency of the suit, he ha