ANANT VINAYAKRAO BOTE Vs. MAHADEV APPANNA NANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed under S.115 CPC. arising out of proceedings under the Mysore Land Reforms Act. As respondent was unrepresented, I requested Sri Tukaram S. Pai to assist the Court in the disposal of the matter. Sri Tukaram S. Pai placed all the aspects of the case and I am thankful to him for the same. Petitioner filed an application on 27-9-1966 claiming resumption of the land from the respondent on the ground that the land is required for bonafide personal cultivation. The inquiry was held and evidence was led by the parties. At that stage an application for amendment of the resumption petition was filed. That application was resisted by the tenant urging that the proposed amendment will alter the entire nature of the proceedings. It was submitted that a proceeding for resumption and a statement under S.14(7) of the Act are totally different, and in a proceeding for resumption, the question of determination whether the person is a small holder does not arise. The learned trial Judge took the view that when cnce the applicant placed his choice for resumption under S.14(1), he cannot have recourse to Sec.14(7), after the period prescribed by 'the Act.

(2.) It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition. In the application for amendment, it has been stated that the petitioner is a small holder and that the suit said land should be continued with the tenant for five years, and thereafter, permission for resumption may be granted. It is this amendment that was sought for. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the lower Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in refusing to grant the amendment prayed for, and therefore, this Court should interfere and set aside the order passed by the lower Court and grant the application for amendment. For that purpose, it is necessary to consider the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act as also the principles governing granting amendment of pleadings.

(3.) As regards the grant of amendment of pleadings the principles governing the same have been laid down in the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court. In A. K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn., AIR 1967 SC 96 the suit was filed by plaintiff-appellant alleging that he had done contract work for the respondent, and under the terms the appellant was entitled to claim the whole of the amount of increase, and so claimed declaration that on a proper interpretation of the clause he was entitled to an enhancement of 20 per cent over the tendered rates. The respondent challenged the interpretation placed and the sole dispute was in respect of the contract and there was no other dispute. An application for amendment of the plaint to include money claim under the same contract was made and the same having been refused, the question was determined by the Supreme Court stating: