KAMATAM SANGALAPPA Vs. KAPADAM SANGALAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 1-6-2002 made in E.A. No.688/2001 in E.P. No.59/2000 in O.S. No.15/33 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur, wherein the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., to add the words "the elders of Yeerayapalli temple" and delete the word "respondent" was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this revision, are as under: The nature of the entire dispute is relating to the Sangalappa deity in between the two villages namely, Gangalakunta and Yerraipalli and it is in between Kapadam people and Kamatam people. As per the terms of the compromise, Kamatham Muddanna and others (plaintiffs) of Yerrayapalli village have agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the defendants, that is Kapadam people, who are the residents of Gangalakunta village. AS per the terms of compromise decree, the deity along with the articles mentioned therein should be exchanged in between the parties within the stipulated period mentioned therein. Further, as per the compromise decree, the deity and other armaments (sic. ornaments) have to be kept in the custody of Yerrayapalli people and Gangalakuntapalli people in the respective temples for a period of six months in every year. The main E.P. is filed because of the disputes arose between the judgment-debtors in whose custody the property is kept, failed to hand over the custody of the property mentioned in the schedule even after the expiry of the stipulated period, i.e., 31-1-19.93 and therefore, the same has to be ordered to be returned or to be seized by the process of Court.

(3.) However, the respondents filed counter denying the allegations of the petitioners stating that there was specific plea in the counter filed by the petitioners that they have developed the temple and handed over the articles and that the respondents are elders of the temple and that the respondents got prepared the deities and perform poojas and that they were conducting poojas and jatharas every year, and therefore, the word 'respondent' cannot be treated as typographical mistake loosely used and that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the entire defence of the judgment-debtors and that the proposed amendment is only invented to get over the admissions and therefore, the amendment cannot be allowed as it will introduce a new case and total change of version pleaded.