ORDER :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in Interlocutory Application No.726 of 2022 in Original Suit No.17 of 2021, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

The petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 2021. The plaintiff filed the said suit seeking declaration that the settlement deed dated 29.05.2019 executed by late Dr.Velangi Aruna Raja Kumari in favour of defendant is null and void, along with cancellation of the said settlement deed and for consequential possession. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.726 of 2022, under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement by adding paragraph 9A after paragraph 9. Opposing the same, the respondent/plaintiff filed counter. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajasehar, learned counsel assisted by Sri K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court, contended that while preparing the notes for trial, the petitioner’s counsel noticed that an important paragraph in the written statement had been omitted due to typographical mistake. He further submitted that the paragraph sought to be inserted would no way affect the plaintiff’s case and that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. The defendant has merely elaborated the original pleadings already taken in the written statement. He further submitted that the trial court failed to see the purport of Order VI Rule 17 CPC in a right perspective and dismissed the application erroneously. In fact, the trial Court dealt with the application filed for amendment of written statement as though it was an application for amendment of plaint. The proposed amendment only seeks to elaborate the earlier pleadings of the defendant in support of his defence. He also submitted that the father of plaintiff filed O.S.No.96 of 2007 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada for declaration and for possession, however, the same was dismissed after full trial on 30.08.2012 and plaintiff’s father preferred an appeal before this Court and the same is pending. The said aspect was sought to be explained elaborately by filing amendment petition. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 8 SCR 1121 contended that the amendments may be allowed, if they are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided that no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. He further contended that the proposed insertion of paragraph 9A in the written statement would alter the nature and scope of the suit, thereby unnecessarily expanding the controversy and leading to a prolonged trial by framing issues, which are not required for adjudication in the present case. He further contended that the subject matter sought to be introduced by way of paragraph 9-A is already pending consideration before this Court in the first appeal and therefore the same need not be pleaded again in the suit. He further submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the interlocutory application and that no grounds have been made out warranting interference by this court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

6