LAWS(APH)-2005-9-4

MECHINENI CHOKKA RAO Vs. SATTU SATTAMMA

Decided On September 13, 2005
MECHINENI CHOKKA RAO Appellant
V/S
SATTU SATTAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-11-2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A.No.726 of 2004 in O.S. No.27 of 2000.

(2.) The unsuccessful respondents/defendants are the revision petitioners. The respondent herein filed initially the suit for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners seeking to restrain them from trespassing or interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land covered by survey No.522 ad measuring 22 guntas situate at Gangadhara Mandal of Karimnagar District. The trial in the suit having been concluded and after having heard arguments, the suit stood adjourned for judgment. At that stage, the respondent herein filed I.A. No.726 of 2004 seeking leave to amend the plaint mentioning inter alia that she having purchased the suit schedule mentioned land under a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1997 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2 lakhs from one E. Buchi Reddy, had been in possession and enjoyment of the said land without any interruption and the petitioners who are the adjacent owners, since denied her title and boundaries mentioned in the schedule, she was advised to amend the plaint by seeking the relief of declaration of her title. That application was resisted on the premises that no specific details whatsoever had been mentioned about the proposed amendments either to add or delete the averments in the plaint and valuation sought to be adopted was of the year 2000 and, therefore, current valuation certificate had to be filed and that the petition for amendment suffered from many irregularities. However, at the time of arguments, it was contended that the petition had been filed at a belated stage and the relief of declaration of title was time barred as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity 'the Act').

(3.) Under the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed the petition. The petitioners therefore seek to assail the same in the instant revision petition.