BOBBALA MUTHYAM REDDY Vs. BOBBALA RAMACHANDRA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent is none other than brother of the petitioner. He filed a suit against the petitioner and his father respondent No.2, and his brother respondent No.3, as well as his two sisters and brothers- in-law respondents 4 to 7. The suit filed in O.S. No.121 of 1994 for permanent injunction was decreed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda on 28.7.1997. He filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, the Code) being LA. No.222 of 2000 to amend the decree and the suit sketch be drawn along with the decree. The petitioner, who was defendant No.3 in the suit, along with other defendants, filed a counter objection to the amendment sought under Section 152 of the Code. The lower Court overruled the objection of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 and allowed the application holding that the sketch which was filed along with the plaint is part and parcel of the plaint and therefore the plaint sketch has to be attached to the decree.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, submits that in the schedule of the property drawn in the plaint the respondent No.1 herein did not mention the open land on the Southern side of mulgies bearing Gram Panchayat Nos.8-19, 9-22 to 9-25 and therefore if the same is attached to the decree the very nature of the suit will be changed. This contention is refuted by Smt. Neeraja, representing Sri M. Venkatarama Reddy, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1.

(3.) The short question which falls for consideration is whether the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda committed error in allowing the amendment under Section 152 of the Code?