or. 6, rule 17 of c.p.c. - whether the averments on the basis of which the application for amendment was filed are correct or not are not germane for consideration at the time of considering the application for amendment. Such averments can be put to test only in the trial. The only question that is relevant at the time of considering the application for amendment is whether such amendment is permissible in law. The law is well settled that the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction is entitled to seek amendment by claiming relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession and that such amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. (See Sampath Kumar, Appellant v. Ayyakannu and another2)




THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY              

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1723 of 2012    

01-11-2012 

Bhanoth Mangamma    

Chitla Ram Reddy  

Counsel for Petitioner:  Mr.Ashok Reddy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Dantu Srinivas
                                
<GIST: 

>HEAD NOTE:    

?CITATIONS:  
2002 (6) ALT 219 

ORDER:  

        This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 13.03.2012 in
I.A.No.538 of 2011 in O.S.No.112 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Jangaon. 

        I have heard Mr. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.
Dantu Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.

        The respondent filed the above-mentioned 
suit for permanent injunction
restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the suit schedule
property. 
He has later on filed I.A.No.538 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
for amendment of the plaint in order to claim the relief of declaration of
title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to demolish the
structures. 
 It is the pleaded case of the respondent that 
initially an order of
status quo was granted on 17.11.2009, which was extended upto 14.12.2009, and  
that later on, due to non-functioning of the Court on account of an agitation,
the status quo order was not extended and
 that taking undue advantage of the
absence of the interim order, the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the
suit schedule property and raised the structures.

        The petitioner resisted the said application by pleading that by
permitting the amendment of the plaint, the whole nature and character of the
suit will undergo a radical change. 
She has further pleaded that the averments
relating to her encroaching upon the property and raising constructions after
the expiry of the order of status quo are totally false and 
that on such
averments, the amendment cannot be allowed. The lower Court, on consideration of
the rival pleas, allowed the application for amendment, by its order dated
13.03.2012. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this
Revision Petition.

        At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the judgment in Sayanna and another v. Thimmanna and another1 in support of his
contention and 
submitted that as held by this Court in the said judgment, by
allowing the amendment of the respondent, the lower Court has allowed the whole
character of the suit altered.

        Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the facts in Sayanna
(supra) are completely different and that the lower Court has considered the
said judgment and distinguished the same on the facts of the present case.

        I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties.

        Taking the second submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner
first,
 whether the averments on the basis of which the application for amendment
was filed are correct or not are not germane for consideration at the time of
considering the application for amendment.
 Such averments can be put to test
only in the trial.  
The only question that is relevant at the time of
considering the application for amendment is
 whether such amendment is 
permissible in law.  
The law is well settled that the plaintiff in a suit for
permanent injunction is entitled to seek amendment by claiming relief of
declaration of title and recovery of possession and that such amendment does not
alter the nature of the suit. (See Sampath Kumar, Appellant v. Ayyakannu and
another2)

        A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that
 it has
considered the judgment in Sayanna (supra) and distinguished the same on the
facts of the present case. 
 In that case, this Court held that by allowing the
application for amendment, by which the plaintiff sought to plead adverse
possession, it would prejudice the interests of the defendant as he may be
denied the rights flowing under the Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section
38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
 This
Court also observed that as the amendment was sought five years after filing of
the suit, the relief claimed by way of amendment was barred by limitation.
Therefore, in my opinion, the lower Court has rightly distinguished the judgment
in Sayanna (supra) and allowed the application of the respondent. 
Hence, I do
not find any error jurisdictional or otherwise in the order of the lower Court
allowing the application for amendment filed by the respondent.

        For the above-mentioned reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. 

        As a sequel, CRPMP.No.2305 of 2012 filed for interim relief is dismissed
as infructuous.
_______________________    
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J      
01.11.2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.