TATIREDDY SUSEELAMMA Vs. ATMAKUR SAMBASIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel on record. The present CRP is filed under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioners-plaintiffs aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2003 made in LA. No. 194 of 2003 in O.S. No.354 of 2001 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

(2.) The said application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint. The facts in detail had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the application and equally an elaborate counter was filed. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, by order dated 22.7.2003, had dismissed the said application on the ground of bar of limitation and also on the ground of the valuation exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction, if the proposed amendment is allowed.

(3.) I am not inclined to go into these questions for the reason that by virtue of the proposed amendment by adding para-7(a), it was prayed that the plaintiffs may be permitted to sue as indigent persons and also consequential amendments to the schedule also had been prayed for. In the counter, specific objection is taken that such conversion cannot be permitted by allowing an application for amendment of pleading under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, 'C.P.C.') and at the best the plaintiffs, if they are so advised, may be at liberty to withdraw the suit in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. with liberty to institute a fresh suit as indigent persons. The learned Judge, no doubt, framed the point for determination as follows :