LAWS(APH)-2005-9-42

C LAXMI DEVI Vs. S ABDUL RAHIMAN

Decided On September 21, 2005
C.LAXMI DEVI Appellant
V/S
S.ABDUL RAHIMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri.

(2.) The matter is coming up for admission to-day. The only contention raised by the counsel for revision petitioner is that by virtue of the order made by this Court in C.R.P.No.2225 of 2005 dated 4-7-2005, the application for amendment of plaint could not have been allowed. The learned counsel pointed out to certain portions of the impugned order and would contend that virtually the learned Judge thought of allowing the application only in the light of the report and the sketch of Deputy Inspector of Survey and the said order was called in question by way of C.R.P. aforesaid and the same was set aside by this Court and hence, this would cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioner. Incidentally the learned counsel also had pointed out to several other factual details.

(3.) The respondents herein, in I.A.No.690 of 2005 in O,S.No.796 of 2001 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed the aforesaid application under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. to permit them to amend the plaint. As can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application it was stated that the revision petitioner- respondent in the application-defendant in the suit high handedly removed the ridges between the respective lands and subsequent thereto two Mandal surveyors were appointed and they filed reports along with sketches. Certain other factual details also had been averred. It was also further stated that the revision petitioner-respondent encroached upon a portion of the plaintiff's land and transplanted the paddy and this was brought to the notice of the Court and the learned Judge appointed the Deputy Inspector of Survey and Land Records. It was also further stated that the revision petitioner-respondent in the said application engaged another advocate and work memos were filed. It was stated that there is some encroachment over the lands of the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit. The said application was resisted by filing a counter in detail.