LAWS(APH)-2015-3-82

MANNE JHANSILAXMI Vs. APASANI ATCHUTA RAMA MOHANARAO

Decided On March 24, 2015
Manne Jhansilaxmi Appellant
V/S
Apasani Atchuta Rama Mohanarao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Civil Suit O.S.No.689 of 2012. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein have originally filed suit O.S.No.689 of 2012. The suit is one for easementary rights coupled with mandatory injunction against the two petitioners herein. The 1st respondent in this revision was originally shown as 3rd defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent, original 3rd defendant was set exparte.

(2.) HOWEVER , the 3rd defendant in the company of two plaintiffs has taken out I.A.No.684 of 2014 seeking transposition of the 3rd defendant as the 3rd plaintiff in the suit and also sought for amendment of the pleadings set up in the plaint by inserting a separate paragraph numbered as 11 (a).

(3.) SRI M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised several contentions importantly amongst them being the petitioners are objecting to 3rd defendant in the suit being allowed to transpose as 3rd plaintiff. Further, a newly transposed 3rd plaintiff cannot seek to amend the plaint originally filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 only. In other words, the 3rd plaintiff, being not there on original record of the Civil Suit as a plaintiff cannot seek to amend the pleadings set up by some other person. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a party can only amend his own pleadings, but he cannot make an attempt to amend the pleadings set up by another party. In the instant case that is what exactly has been attempted to be done by the 1st respondent herein, who is now transposed as 3rd plaintiff. That apart, the amendment now sought for is in the teeth of suit O.S.No.279 of 2012 instituted for identical relief by the 1st respondent herein, the present 3rd plaintiff against the very same two petitioners herein. Therefore, the present suit could not have been amended for advancing the cause of the 3rd plaintiff now, which is independent and in fact separate suit is already instituted for the said purpose.