Orders Reserved on : 06.03.2026

Orders Pronounced on : 30.04.20

20

2

2

6

6

APHC010658562025

Orders Uploaded on : 01.05.2026

The Court made the following ORDER:

The petitioner / plaintiff in O.S.No.320 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate), Chittoor, against the order dated 08.10.2025 in I.A.No.335 of 2025, filed the present Revision Petition.

The said suit is filed initially seeking an injunction against the respondents / defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner / plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The 1st respondent / 1st defendant filed a detailed written statement on 30.10.2017. While denying that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, the defendant specifically asserted that they are absolute and rightful owners of the plaint schedule property and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. When the suit is coming up for the evidence on the defendants’ side and after filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of D.W.1, the petitioner / plaintiff filed the above mentioned I.A.No.335 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) r/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to permit him to amend the plaint and to carry out consequential amendments. The respondents / defendants filed their counter and contested the matter.

The learned Trial Court after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the I.A., in question.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff. Also heard learned counsel for the respondents / defendants.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to impress upon the Court that the learned Trial Court erred in not considering the matter in the proper perspective and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. He submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the same. He submits that the order of the learned Trial Court in dismissing the application in question on the premise that the petitioner / plaintiff did not chose to amend the plaint at the earliest point of time after filing of the written statement is not tenable. He submits that a plain reading of the provision i.e., Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., would make it clear that the Court has ample power to permit the parties to amend the plaint at any stage of the proceedings. He further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants by allowing the amendment as sought for by the petitioner, that the nature of the suit by virtue of the amendment will not be changed. Further that in the event, the Court is of the opinion that the application is filed belatedly, the same can be ordered by imposing costs. Making the said submissions and placing reliance on the decisions reported in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626 and Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & Another, (2002) 7 SCC 559, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. Drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., in question, the learned counsel submits that the averments made therein are vague and does not contain a specific averment that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner / plaintiff could not file the application for amendment of plaint before commencement of trial. He submits that the only intention of the petitioner / plaintiff is to protract the litigation, that there are no merits in the matter and the learned Trial Court was right in dismissing the application seeking amendment of plain