HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3214 of 2012

ORDER:

This revision is filed by the plaintiff assailing the orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon dated 17.04.2012. By the impugned orders, the application filed by the plaintiff in I.A. No. 16 of 2012 in A.S. No. 6 of 2009 under Section 26(4) of Specific Relief Act to permit him to amend the plaint in para 10(i) to add the terms after the word ‘schedule’— praying that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed registered document No.761/1988 dated 26.05.1988 are mistaken and correct boundaries are – East: Land of Chennaboina Ramaiah and land of others; West: Land of Sriramulu Venkat Narsaiah; North: New PWD Road and land of Gadepalli Narayan Reddy; and South:

Land of Embari Bixapathy— was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case are that, the revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein are the defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S. No. 198 of 1997 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas dry land, situated at Pemberthy Village of Jangaon Mandal. On contest, the suit was dismissed by judgment dated 03.08.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being A.S. No. 6 of 2009 before the lower appellate court i.e., the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff filed the impugned application with the prayer as indicated above. On contest, the lower appellate Court dismissed the application by orders dated 17.04.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the present civil revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the findings of the trial Court in dismissing the petition on the ground that the nature of the suit changes from simple suit for injunction to that of specific relief of rectification of the sale deed are erroneous under law, and in fact, the rectification of sale deed, as sought for in the I.A., does not change the nature of the relief. The trial Court failed to take note of the fact that Section 26(4) of the Specific Relief Act itself provides that the Court shall permit the amendment at any stage of the suit to incorporate the relief of rectification of instrument.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, sought to sustain the impugned order contending that the amendment, sought for by the plaintiff, is barred by law of limitation as the document is of the year 1988 and whereas, the amendment is sought in the year 2012 apart from the fact that the amendment, if permitted to be allowed, would change the nature of the suit from simple suit for injunction to that of specific relief of rectification of the sale deed and therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the I.A. by the impugned order and the same needs no interference by this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.

7. Admittedly, during pendency of the suit before the trial Court seeking perpetual injunction, the plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint regarding boundaries in I.A. No. 405 of 2002 and on dismissal of the same, when the matter was carried in revision, this Court vide orders dated 08.02.2006 in C.R.P. No. 340 of 2006 permitted the plaintiff to carry out the said amendment. Subsequently, on contest, the suit was dismissed. Now, in the appeal, the plaintiff, by filing the impugned application, wants to seek the relief of rectification of the sale deed No. 761 of 1988, dated 26.05.1988 pleading that there are mistakes regarding the boundaries in the sale deed and that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are correct. The lowe