RACHABTHUNI KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. RACHABTHUNI UMASUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.117 of 2007 in the Court of IX Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali against the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain items of property. The parties to the suit are members of the same family. The petitioner placed reliance upon a document, dated 15.03.1983 said to be a deed of family settlement. Apart from other parties to the suit, 1st respondent herein i.e., 5th defendant filed a written statement. Based upon pleadings, the trial Court framed issues. Thereafter, trial of the suit commenced, and evidence on behalf of the petitioner i.e., plaintiff was closed.

(2.) It appears that defendants 1 to 4 in the suit reported no evidence. Therefore, it is the turn of the 1st respondent herein i.e., 5th defendant to adduce evidence. At that stage, he filed I.A.No.1250 of 2011 under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it was stated that the written statement was filed on the basis of the advice tendered to him by an Advocate engaged by him and that in the recent past, he changed his Advocate and a different advice altogether was given. It was further stated that the objective of seeking amendment is to make the denials, particularly about the averments in the deed of settlement, specific; and to elaborate the pleas that were already raised in the written statement. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order, dated 27.12.2011, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Heard Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Sriman, learned counsel for respondent No.10. The petitioner endorsed that respondents 2 to 9 are not necessary parties.