DHULIPALLA SRINIVASA RAO Vs. KANDULA GOVARDHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the unsuccessful respondent/2nd defendant assailing the order, dated 04.01.2016, of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, passed in IA.no.1264 of 2015 in OS.no.55 of 2010 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [the Code, for brevity] requesting to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint as stated in the petition list.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-2nd defendant, and of Sri Y.Narapa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-plaintiff. I have perused the material record. 2.1 The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants for convenience and clarity.

(3.) The facts, which are required to be stated as a preface to this order, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants including the revision petitioner/2nd defendant for cancellation of a sale deed, dated 26.02.2008, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and for costs pleading inter alia that the transaction under the sale deed is null and void. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed aforesaid interlocutory application to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and carry out consequential amendments to enable the plaintiff to seek the reliefs of declaration of ownership of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and recovery of vacant possession of the said property, viz., Ac.00.06 cents (=0.024 hectares = 291 square yards) situated at Epurupalem village, Vadarevu Panchayat, Chirala Mandal, more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The 2nd defendant filed a counter resisting the said application. On merits and by the orders impugned in this revision, the trial Court allowed the petition of the plaintiff. Hence, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant is before this Court.