A party may amend their pleadings to enhance clarity and precision, provided it does not prejudice the other party.

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.1662 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.80 of 2023 in O.S.No.66 of 2018 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Hayatnagar.

3. C.R.P.No.1673 of 2024 of filed challenging the order dated 05.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.629 of 2023 in O.S.No.65 of 2018 by the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Hayatnagar.

4. The brief facts of the cases are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed two applications, I.A.No.629 of 2023 in O.S.No.65 of 2018 and I.A.No.80 of 2023 in O.S.No.66 of 2018, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The petitioner sought to amend certain paragraphs of the plaint in both suits. However, the trial court dismissed both applications, finding that the reasons provided by the petitioner were unsatisfactory and that allowing the amendments would give rise to new disputes in the suits. The trial court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed, respectively.

5. Heard Sri Nikhat Sajida, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Gone Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial court in dismissing the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is contrary to law, evidence, and probabilities. The trial court failed to consider the averments of the petitioner that the proposed amendments would not alter the relief claimed or impact the interests of the respondents.

He further submitted that the respondents/defendants failed to file any documentary proof to support their contentions, and the trial court ignored the admissions made by respondent/defendant No.3 in his counter affidavit. The trial court also failed to appreciate that the amendments sought were necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. The petitioner relies on various judgments, including Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra, Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, and Oggu Ananda Kumar v. Tammu Vijaya Lakshmi , to support the case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the orders of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petitions.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the present Civil Revision Petitions are a blatant abuse of the legal process, filed with mala fide intentions and false allegations and that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, having taken divergent pleas in their original and amended pleadings. The petition seeks to amend the plaint, which is not permissible at this stage, as it fundamentally alters the basic structure of the suit. He further submitted that the actions of the petitioner are a clear attempt to interfere with the agricultural lands of the respondents, over which they have no title or claim. The respondents have been protecting their lands, and the actions of the petitioner are a blatant attempt to dispossess them. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to identify their own purchase of plot nos. 36 and 37, and instead seeks to amend the plaint to include new and unsubstantiated claims.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order of the trial court in dismissing the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint is correct, and this revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. The allegations made by the petitioner are false and fictitious, and he had failed to provide any