G. KRISHNA RAO AND ORS. Vs. G. SATYNARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the defendants in O.S. No. 240/2014 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2015 made on I.A. No. 2 allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, they have filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE respondent herein has filed O.S. No. 240/2014 seeking for declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and also for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and other reliefs. In the plaint it is contended that though the defendants have no right over the suit schedule property, they are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY , thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the plaint. By the said application, the plaintiff wanted to delete the prayer of declaration and confine his prayer to injunctory relief only. Petitioners/defendants filed objections to the said application contending that at that stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint as it would change the cause of action and nature of the suit. Petitioners/defendants further contended that the reason assigned by the plaintiff in para 2 of the affidavit accompanying I.A. No. II, that due to typographical error he has wrongly mentioned the court fee and wrongly claimed the relief of declaration and hence he wanted to confine it to injunctory relief only, is false, and sought for dismissal of the application.