AKULA RAJAIAH Vs. KANNAMALLA KRUPAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) respondents filed a suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the revision petitioners and their men from interfering with their possession over the ac.0.05 guntas of land specified in the plaint schedule (suit land), which is being contested by the revision petitioners, by filing written statement. After respondents closed their evidence and when the case is posted for cross-examination of dw. 1, revision petitioners filed a petition seeking leave of the court to amend their written statement which was opposed by the respondents. The trial court, by the order under revision, dismissed the said petition for amendment of the written statement. Hence, this revision.

(2.) the main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since one of the amendments sought is only a correction of the typographical etror that crept in and since the other amendments sought are the explanations of the facts earlier pleaded by the revision petitioners, the court below was in error in dismissing the petition without keeping in view of the fact that rules of procedure are but handmaids of justice, and contends that the court below was in error in assuming that the petition for amendment is not maintainable by virtue of rule 17 of order vi cpc, as amended by the cpc (amendment) act, 2002. Placing strong reliance on pankaja v. Yellappa, air 2004 sc 4102, he contends that delayed prayers for amendment can also be allowed by courts. Learned counsel for the respondents relying on rahimmunnisa begum v. Mm khan durrani (died) by lrs., 2004 (2) ald 511, contends that this revision is not maintainable. It is his contention that if the first prayer is to be allowed, it would tantamount to allowing the revision petitioners withdrawing an admission made by him which in view of the ratio in modi spinning a weaving mills v. Ladha ram and company, air 1977 sc 680, is not permissible. He also relied on batchu laxmcpathi v. M. Prakash, 2003 (2) an.wr 123 (a.p) = 2003 (6) ald (noc) 118 and kondagani rajeshwar rao and another v. Candu sammaiah, 2003 (3) ald 97, in support of his contention that the order under revision is unassailable.

(3.) since this is not a revision under section 115 cpc, but is a petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, the ratio in rahimmunnisa begum case (supra) does not apply to this case.