BEVERA APPALANAIDU Vs. YELAGADA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of service of notices, the respondents have not appeared to oppose the revision petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) This C.R.P. is directed against an order refusing to permit an amendment of the plaint. The petitioners initially filed the suit against Respondents 1 to 7 for a perpetual injunction restraining Respondents 1 to 7 from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioners have also filed a petition for grant of temporary injunction against Respondents 1 to 7 and obtained orders of interim injunction against them. The petition for temporary injunction is said to be still pending. On an objection taken by Respondents 1 to 7 that the suit lands are Government lands and that the Government is also a necessary and proper party to the suit, the petitioners got the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram impleaded as 8th defendant in the suit. In the written statement filed, the 8th defendant took the plea that some items of the suit land are Government lands and that proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act were taken against the petitioners for eviction from the suit lands and that orders of eviction were also passed by the competent authority i.e., the Mandal Revenue Officer and the petitioners were also got evicted from the lands. The petitioners, however, seek to contend that they had no notice of any such proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act and they were never evicted from the lands and that they are still in possession. In view of the plea taken by the 8th defendant in the written statement, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a plea that the alleged proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act are illegal and void and that the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act have no application at all. The application for amendment was dismissed by the Lower Court mainly on the ground that the application was very much belated and that the relief of declaration which is sought to be introduced by way of amendment is also barred by time. In its order the Lower Court has observed that the written statement was filed on 27-9-1988, the issues were framed on 28-9-1989 and the suit is posted for trial and the suit is coming up for trial since 28-9-1989 whereas the application for amendment was filed late on 4-3-1993. It also observed that the plaintiffs obtained exparte orders of injunction in the year 1988 and the petition for amendment should have been filed within three years from the date of filing of the suit. The Lower Court has further observed that the petition is filed with a view to delaying the trial of the suit and it is not bona fide.

(3.) It is true that there is considerable delay in filing the petition for amendment. But mere delay is not a ground for refusing to permit the amendment as Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. itself makes it clear that an amendment of the plaint can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings. In appropriate cases, an amendment can be allowed even at the appellate stage. Though the defendants allege that orders of eviction were passed against the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, the date or dates of the alleged orders of eviction are not mentioned in the written statement. It is, therefore, not possible to say on what date the cause of action for seeking the relief of declaration has accrued to the plaintiffs and in the absence of any such particulars, it is difficult to hold that the relief of declaration is barred by time. Further the proposed amendment is consequential to the addition of the 8th defendant as a party to the suit. After all, the object of Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. is to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate all questions in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Though, as a general rule, an amendment which deprives a party of any right accrued to it by lapse of time should not be permitted, in exceptional cases an amendment can be allowed even after the lapse of period of limitation if it is required in the interests of justice.