KAPPALA SESHAIAH Vs. RAJAHMANDRY SRINU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, in I.A.No.342 of 2016 in O.S.No.296 of 2012 dtd. 13/12/2016, wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that the petition is filed after commencement of trial.

(2.) The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs before the trial Court in brief is that they filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession basing on registered agreement of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney dtd. 3/12/2020 against the respondent. They submit that they have clearly mentioned in the plaint that "the defendant having received the Court notice and without obtaining prior permission of the Hon'ble Court and while the matter was pending litigation, illegally encroached upon the suit schedule property and contiguous property pertaining to the 1st plaintiff to an extent of 201 sq. yards., and raised temporary sheds." It is also the contention of the petitioners that they have obtained valuation certificate for the site to an extent of 201 sq. yards and temporary sheds therein but not for 42 cents. They have specifically stated that first petitioner filed chief examination affidavit and he was also cross-examined on 10/2/2016 and during the crossexamination they noticed that a typographical mistake crept in the schedule, i.e., instead of mentioning the extent of site as 201 sq. yards out of 42 cents, they have mentioned entire 42 cents within the boundaries, which has to be amended. They pray to amend the plaint schedule seeking relief in respect of 201 sq. yards out of 42 cents site with the same boundaries.

(3.) The respondent/defendant filed counter before trial Court denying the averments made in the affidavit of the first petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that petitioners came up with petition to amend plaint schedule after completion of cross-examination of P.W.1 only to get over admissions made by P.W.1 and to fill up the gaps, which is not permissible under law. They submit that the amendment sought by the petitioners is not at all correct and precise on material aspects and petitioners are also not diligent in prosecuting the case. He prays to dismiss the petition.