CH PEDAAPPALASWAMY Vs. CH APPALANAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the State of Admission This Revision is directed against an order dismissing an application for the amendment of the plaint filed at the appeal stage.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S.No-157 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Bobbili against the respondents herein for a permanent injunction restraining the repondents/defendants from interfring with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiff based his claim on a 'D' form patta alleged to have been granted in his favour by the Government. The respondents/defendants resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit land is a zeroyathi patta land which is being enjoyed by the defendants along with the plaintiff in equal shares and that the plaintiff has no exclusive possession over the suit land. After framing the appropriate issues, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for a bare injunction without a prayer for declaration of his title to the suit land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner /plaintiff has filed A.S.No.19 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bobbili. In the said appeal, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.625 of 1995 for amendment of the plaint introducing the relief of declaration of title to the suitland. The said application for amendment was opposed by the respondents/defendants on the ground that the proposed amendment changes the nature and character of the suit and if allowed it would cause prejudice to them and that in any case, the application which is filed at a belated stage in the appeal cannot be permitted. After hearing both parties, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the application for amendment mainly on the ground that it is filed at a belated stage. The lower Appellate Court observed that the suit was filed on 2-6-1986, that the defendants filed their written statements on 15-11-1987 denying the title of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff should have therefore taken appropriate steps for amendment in the Trial Court itself and that the amendment sought for is likely to cause prejudice to the defendants. The lower Appellate Court has also made some observations on the merits of the rival contentions and appears to have been inclined to agree with the Trial Court's view that a suit for bare injunction without aprayer for declaration of title is not main tainable. The lower Appellate Court however made it clear that any observations made by it touching the merits of the respective contentions are only for the limited purpose of disposing of the the application for amendment and that the main appeal will have to be disposed of on merits without in any way being influenced by these

(3.) In this Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the Courts below have grossly erred in their view that a suit for injunction is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title. He also contended that the proposed amendment does not bring any new cause of action and no new facts are sought to be introduced, that the amendment of the plaint does not involve adducing of any further evidence in the suit and there is also no necessity to remand the matter for further evidence and that it is well settled that amendment of pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings including at the appeal stage.