C. RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. ANITHA R. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant has preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the applications for production of documents and also for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is, as per the schedule in the plaint, defendant's property is not shown adjoining the plaintiffs property. The suit is one for declaration or mandatory injunction and for other consequential reliefs. The issues are framed. Plaintiff has closed his side and plaintiff has commenced his evidence. At that stage, these applications are filed. In support of the application for production of document, relevancy of the documents produced are not set out. In the application filed for amendment, the averment sought to be made by way of amendment that, the defendants have encroached upon the plaintiffs property, runs counter to the schedule in the suit. Further, in Schedule 'B' they want to amend stating that "to the north, i.e., the property of the 1st defendant". Therefore, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 submitted that no amendment could be allowed after the trial has commenced. The Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the objections raised, has allowed this application. He seeks to set -aside the said order.

(3.) THE documents sought to be produced are certified copies of two registered Sale deeds. The 1st document is of the year 1937, under which the 1st defendant is said to have acquired title. It shows the extent of land owned by the vendor of the 1st defendant. The second document is the document, under which he acquired title to the property. The case of the plaintiff is, the 1st defendant's vendor was the owner of only 6 ankanas as is clear from the 1937 document whereas in the sale deed, in addition to 6 ankanas, he has sold property measuring 15 ft. X 45' ft. of which he is not the owner. The case being one for declaration and mandatory injunction, on the ground of encroachment, the documents are necessary. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for production of documents, the plaintiff submits that she was not aware of some of the documents, which were misplaced and they were traced recently and some of the documents were obtained recently from the concerned departments. Therefore, those documents are necessary for adjudicating the rights between the parties.