DONKADA VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. GALLA SANYASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 606 of 2008 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the respondents, for the relief of mandatory injunction. The respondents contested the matter and the trial was also completed. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 443 of 2011 under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., with a prayer to permit her to amend the plaint, to incorporate the relief of declaration.

(2.) The suit is at the advanced stage of disposal. Not only the trial was completed, but it is said to be at the stage of arguments. In the ordinary course of things, an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., at that stage, cannot be entertained, in view of the prohibition contained under proviso to that Rule. However, the prohibition is not absolute and in a given case, if proper explanation is offered to the satisfaction of the Court, the amendment can be ordered.

(3.) In the instant case, the petitioner does not intend to plead any new facts, nor any substantial relief than what was prayed for in the plaint. The effort is only to overcome a legal defect, which crept into the suit. Though the relief of perpetual injunction can be claimed, exclusively in a suit, when it comes to the question of claiming the relief of mandatory injunction, it must be preceded by the one of declaration of rights in that behalf. It is to overcome this that the petitioner filed this application. This Court is of the view that the ordinary principles governing Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. cannot be applied to the applications of this nature.