BATCHU LAXMEPATHI Vs. M PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed O.S.No. 51 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, against the petitioner herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction, in respect of the property in Sy.No. 65/1 of Kamareddy Revenue Mandal, Nizamabad District. The suit schedule property was described with reference to certain boundaries. The land belonging to the petitioner herein in Sy. No. 72/1 and 72/2 is shown as the eastern boundary.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed written statement admitting the fact that his land touches the eastern boundary of the land of the respondent. Subsequent, he filed LA. No. 268/2001 for amendment of the written statement. Through that amend, he wanted to introduce the fact that between the land of the petitioner in Sy.Nos. 72/1 and 72/2 and the land of the respondent in Sy.No. 65/1, there exist another survey number viz., Sy.No. 66. The said IA was dismissed, through order dated 26-3-2002. Hence this Revision.

(3.) Sri C.R.Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is permissible to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC as long as no fresh cause of action is introduced and that there was no justification for the trial Court to reject the application filed by the petitioner. It is his contention that what was sought to be introduced by way of amendment was only the correct state of affairs as borne out by the records and if the amendment is not carried out, the adjudication has to take place contrary to the facts reflected in by the record, such as village map. He cited judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in support of his contention.