KALYANI GERDAU STEELS LTD Vs. BALIREDDYGARI NAGALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 28.06.2012, in I.A.No.123 of 2010 in O.S.No.152 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. In the suit, the petitioner, who is defendant No.2, has filed written statement, wherein it was averred that the lands in Survey Nos.578 and 579-B correlated to item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule property, are situated outside the existing wall. A few months after filing of the said written statement, the petitioner and respondent No.5/defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.123 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement in order to plead that part of item Nos.5 and 6 is within the compound wall and the remaining part is outside the compound wall. The said petition was dismissed by the lower Court by the order under revision.

(3.) Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the opinion that the relief claimed by the petitioner is wholly innocuous. In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the location of the property with reference to compound wall is hardly of any relevance. At any rate, the petitioner is always entitled to seek amendment of the pleading, even if by such amendment, he seeks to vary his stand either completely or partly. After all, by merely permitting amendment of the pleadings, the party will not succeed unless he substantiates his pleadings by adducing relevant evidence. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 failed to plead any prejudice that may be caused to their interests if amendment is permitted. In my opinion, the lower Court has failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in considering the petitioner's application for amendment.