This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging the allowance of an amendment to a plaint seeking mandatory injunction and possession relief. The court found no infirmity in the trial court’s exercise of discretion, noting that the decision on merits falls for trial.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.3621 OF 2014
ORDER :
This petition is filed against the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy in IA.No.215 of 2014 in OS.No.156 of 2008, wherein the Court below has allowed the application filed by the respondent/petitioner herein under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by seeking the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of illegal constructions raised by the petitioners/respondents who are the defendants in the suit and also for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property i.e. dilapidated house site bearing No. 6-107 and New No.7-139, admeasuring 90 Sq.Ys. located at Shanthinagar, Amangal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the averments in the amendment petition filed by the respondent/petitioner before the Court below are very vague and it is not clear about the nature and extents of the construction made by the petitioners/respondents in the suit schedule property. He also submits that petitioners filed written statement in the year 2009 stating about the alleged construction whereas the application for amendment of the plaint is filed in the year 2014, which is a belated one.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that original suit was filed for simplicitor injunction in respect of suit schedule property but, alleging that the petitioners have made construction during the pendency of the suit, the respondent/petitioner has filed application seeking relief of mandatory injunction for removal alleged illegal constructions raised by the petitioners and also for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.
It is not the case of the petitioner before the Court below and before this Court that by such amendment, cause of action in the suit changes and there is no bar also for amending the prayer. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for such relief in pursuance to the amendment, depends upon the evidence adduced and the same will be considered after trial is over. However, it is open for the petitioners/respondents to raise all their pleas before the Court below and the Court below after considering the same, dispose of the suit, on merits. Since
the application for amendment of the plaint can be ordered at any stage before commencement of trial, the trial Court has exercised its discretion and allowed the application. As such, I do not see any infirmity in the order dated 05.09.2014 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy in IA.No.215 of 2014 in OS.No.156 of 2008. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
20.10.2014 t k.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any infirmity by allowing an amendment to the plaint seeking relief for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession.
Whether a cause of action changes merely by such an amendment of prayer.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Person unknown
Person unknown
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
