CHINNAPAREDDY SUBBA REDDY Vs. CHINNAPAREDDY SRINU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 05.03.2012 in I.A.No.687 of 2011 in O.S.No.92 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi.

(2.) The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. He also filed I.A.No.419 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction. After enquiry, the said I.A. was dismissed by the lower Court by holding that the petitioner was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.687 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., seeking amendment of the plaint by adding the alternative relief of recovery of possession. This application was dismissed by the lower Court, by its order dated 05.03.2012, on the ground that as the petitioner has been all through pleading that he was in possession of the property, the application for amendment, if allowed, will change the nature and character of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed this Revision Petition.

(3.) At the hearing, Mrs. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the petitioner's application on a totally misconceived premise that the application for amendment in a suit for permanent injunction claiming alternative relief of possession is not maintainable. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 3369 .