Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be permitted if they are necessary to determine the real controversy between parties, and a change in the relief sought does not automatically change the basic nature of the suit.

ORDER

Heard Mr.K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Krishnaiah Ginukuntla, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2025 passed in I.A.No.496 of 2022 in O.S.No.119 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy, this revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners-defendants.

3. The background facts are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.119 of 2024 for perpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of Ac.0.12 guntas in Survey No.119/A/1 situated in Rachalapally Village, Urkonda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. During pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners-defendants have forcibly dispossessed the respondent-plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff filed I.A.No.496 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 read with 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to amend the plaint. Learned Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 23.01.2025 allowed the application. Hence, the present revision petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondent-plaintiff could always withdraw the suit for perpetual injunction and file a fresh suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. Learned counsel further submitted that the cause of action for filing the suit for perpetual injunction is different from the cause of action for filing suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The nature of the suit would change substantially when the relief sought for is changed from one of simpliciter injunction to that of recovery of possession.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was in possession of the suit schedule property, but he was forcibly dispossessed by the revision petitioners and contended that amendment of the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.1086 of 2018 and also the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman and another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others, wherein it was held that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining real questions of controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties.

6. When this Court questioned as to what is the inconvenience or difficulty faced by the petitioners in case the amendment is permitted, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent was never in possession of the suit schedule property. If the amendment is permitted, it would cause prejudice to the petitioners and that nature of the suit itself is changed by seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession.

7. This Court sees two plausible situations i.e., the respondent-plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property, but has filed a suit for perpetual injunction. Having failed to secure temporary injunction, the impugned application has been filed by the respondent to amend the plaint seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession during pendency of the suit.