VALLALA YASODHA Vs. VALLALA NAGA VENKATA LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed questioning order of the lower Court refusing to permit amendment of the plaint. Originally the suit is filed for permanent injunction by the petitioner and it was being contested by the respondents/defendants. Trial of the suit has commenced and evidence of the plaintiff as P.W-1 was over. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the present petition in the lower Court for amendment of the plaint in order to include the relief of cancellation of the document No.4615/2011, dated 08.06.2011. The said sale deed dated 08.06.2011 was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the 3rd defendant in respect of the suit property. The said document was prior to filing of the suit in the lower Court. The suit was filed in August, 2011. The lower Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the plaintiff- petitioner was knowing about the said sale deed at least since the time of filing of the written statement and in spite of it the petitioner did not come forward with the prayer for amendment of plaint till after trial of the suit is commenced.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner is an old lady of 87 years and she is not well versed in law and that therefore she could not file the petition expeditiously. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel contended that the present petition for amendment is hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The said provision reads as follows:

(3.) SECONDLY it is contended by the respondents' counsel that prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.06.2011 is outside the scope of the existing suit for permanent injunction. No doubt, in a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor, possession of the plaintiff is the primary concern, the second or secondary concern being as to whether the plaintiff has got better title to the property than that of the defendants. In the secondary aspect to be decided in the suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to necessarily attack the sale deed dated 08.06.2011. Since the sale deed dated 08.06.2011 is in respect of the suit property only and in between the defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand and the 3rd defendant on the other hand, scope of the suit may not be totally changed. The proposed amendment if allowed will only enlarge the procedure of the suit by way of giving permission to defendants to file additional written statement and framing additional issues before proceeding with further trial.