THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2902 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Janagaon, (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.202 of 2024 in O.S.No.309 of 2022, wherein petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking amendment to the plaint has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and rectification of revenue records. The petitioner claims to be actually in possession of the suit schedule property i.e., land to an extent of Ac.11-17 ½ guntas in Sy.Nos.356 to 358 situated at Jeedikal Village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, Jangaon District. When there were attempts to encroach the said land on the part of the respondents, the suit for declaration of title together with relief of perpetual injunction had to be sought for. While so, the learned counsel for the petitioner on record before the trial Court allegedly drafted the plaint seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. When the matter came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he changed the said counsel and filed the I.A. under revision seeking amendment to seek relief of perpetual injunction instead of recovery of possession and to replace pleadings which show that the respondents/defendants are in occupation as against the possession of the petitioner. The trial Court dismissed the I.A.

leading to filing of the present revision.

4. In spite of service of notice, the respondents did not appear before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the plaint contents and need for effective amendment and dismissal of the I.A. by the trial Court. It is submitted that the amendment sought for would not change the nature of the suit as the primary relief sought is declaration of title. Currently, the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, there is no need for seeking of relief of recovery of possession. While so, the trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of due diligence for filing the I.A. after gap of more than two months of filing of vakalath by the second counsel for the petitioner. With respect to lack of due diligence, it is submitted that the petition to amend has been filed prior to commencement of trial and therefore, squarely meets requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

6. Having regard to the contentions of the petitioner, in case the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property, there is no need to seek recovery of possession. Also, there is need to amend the pleadings to put-forth the case of the petitioner as per his version. No purpose would be served by denying such an opportunity and compel the petitioner to proceed with the relief that is not required. In any case, the trial has not commenced and there can be no obstruction for carrying out amendment.

7. Coming to the apprehension about the change of nature of the suit, the nature of the suit is declaration of title. The only change would be seeking either recovery of possession or perpetual injunction. When the petitioner is in possession, it is only appropriate that perpetual injunction is sought and not recovery of possession. The delay of two moths cannot be ground to deny the relief prayed for by the petitioner.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 in I.A.No.202 of 2024 in O.S.No.309 of 2022 on the file of the trial Court. Consequently, I.A.No.202 of 2024 is allowed permitting the petitioner to carry out amendments to th