S.ANURADHA Vs. GOLUGURI LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the orders, dtd. 2/11/2022, dismissing I.A.No.616 of 2020 in O.S.No.363 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, filed under Sec. 26(2), (4) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Sec. 151 CPC seeking the following prayer:

(2.) To add the following para 11 C, after para 11 B: "11C. The intention of the Ex.A-18 document is for a transfer of property for 281.3 sq. yards including North side rajaveedhi, in Rs. No.120 in between the respondents 1 and 2 and their vendors. Whereas it being a deed of our north boundary land, a fraud is played to encroach my site with a south boundary recital as "panta bodi" and I am entitled, as a third party effected, to seek for the remedy of rectification of their south boundary recital instead of "panta bodi" as "Rs. No.121/1" through courts of equity.

(3.) The petition was opposed by filing a counter of respondents 1 and 2 stating that the petition is not maintainable and is barred by limitation and also stating that as many as nine (9) witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and (32) documents besides Exs.C1 and C2 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs and that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants and thereafter, the suit stood posted for argument on several dates, i.e., on 7/8/2019, 9/8/2019, and 14/8/2019. But arguments were not advanced by the petitioners. Later, petitions in I.A.1234/19, 1235/19 and 1236/19 were filed for reopening of evidence and recalling witnesses and to receive the documents and all those petitions were allowed on 19/8/2019 and the matter has been posted for evidence on 21/8/2019, as the suit is of old being instituted in the year 1998. But the 3rd petitioner did not turn up for examination on 21/8/2019 and an adjournment was sought by filing petition and thereafter, on allowing such petition, the case was posted to 26/8/2019 and thereafter, petition for amendment of the plaint was filed. The respondents further stated that the application was filed on 7/4/1998 and the affidavit of PW1 was filed on 7/12/2005 and PW1 was partly cross-examined on 24/1/2006 and later PW2 was cross-examined on 31/8/2019 and the same was completed on 1/9/2009 and later, other witnesses were examined. According to these respondents, the suit has undergone several adjournments at the instance of the plaintiffs and after 21 years of litigation, an amendment of the plaint was sought. The respondents further referred to the evidence, oral and documentary, regarding the boundary in dispute, but the amendment sought totally provides a different cause of action against the original pleading and so the proposed amendment is not maintainable particularly, when the amendment changes the contours of litigation and introduces a new case. It is also contended that the petitioners failed to prove that despite due diligence, they could not have taken these amendments before commencement of trial and since the petition was filed at a belated stage with an oblique motive, the petition is liable to be dismissed.