ALIMINETI SADANANDAM Vs. DARIPELLY NARAYANA CHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed a suit for partition of the plaint "A", "B" and "C" schedule properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to him.

(2.) After the sixth defendant filed his written statement, revision petitioner filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint by introducing a plea that inasmuch as the agreement of sale dated 2-3-2005 relied on by the sixth defendant is not binding on him, the said agreement may be declared null and void, and filed another petition seeking leave of the Court to file a rejoinder. Both the said petitions were heard together and by a common order, the trial Court dismissed the petition for amendment and allowed the petition seeking leave to file a rejoinder. Aggrieved by the Order dismissing the petition for amendment of the plaint, plaintiff filed this revision.

(3.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner came to know about the agreement of sale in favour of the sixth defendant only after the sixth defendant filing his written statement and since the trial of the suit is yet to be commenced, the trial Court was in error in dismissing the petition for amendment. The contention of the learned counsel for the sixth defendant (sixth respondent) is that since allowing the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit and the cause of action also, the order under revision needs no interference. He placed strong reliance on Rafeeq Ahmed v. Hameed Ahmed Khan and Kantham Narasimha Reddy v. Puran Buchaiah in support of his said contention.