PINAPOTHUSESHAMMA Vs. PINAPOTHUNAMITHASONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.162 of 2015 before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for permanent injunction against the respondents in relation to the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property described in the schedule to the plaint was two pieces of land consisting of Ac.0.10 cents each. Thereafter, the petitioners moved I.A.No.164 of 2021 seeking amendment of the extent of the schedule property. The same came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner again moved I.A.No.323 of 2021 before the trial Court for amendment of the plaint schedule property, again on the ground that the schedule properties in Items 1 and 2 are to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents each and not Ac.0.10 cents each. The petitioners also sought addition of para X-AA and para XIII-AA. The said para XIII-AA was for addition of prayer and declaration that the petitioners are the owners of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. This application came to be dismissed on 12/07/2021. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) The trial Court rejected the applications on the ground that I.A.No.164 of 2021, which was filed essentially for the same purpose, has already been dismissed and the prayer for amendment of the schedule was hit by the principle of res judicata. As far as the second amendment of seeking declaration of right over the property is concerned, the said amendment would change the structure of the suit itself and the delay in filing the application has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court nor has dud diligence in filing the application at the earliest has been demonstrated. In fact the trial Court took the view that there was suppression of fact in the proposed amendment.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.