KARRI TULESAMMA Vs. POYYA MOSHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order in I.A.No. 362/1994 in O.S. No. 262/1987 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tanuku, dated 17-4-1995 refusing amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.

(2.) A copy of the petition filed along with the material papers in this C.R.P. shows that the amendment became necessary on account of some subsequent developments after the filing of the suit. Therefore, para 10 (a) is proposed to be added. Hence, it begins with the sentence "Since the date of suit the 2nd defendant abandoned evincing interest in the proposed gift of....." It is in the affidavit of the revision petitioner that he proposed to gift the suit schedule land to the 2nd respondent and permitted 1st respondent to keep the construction material in the schedule land, but he started encroaching some other land unauthorisedly and hence the suit for permanent injunction was filed. It is further stated that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the 2nd respondent is not evincing any interest in the matter and whereas respondent No. 1 has no right to keep the material and hence the amendment is necessitated. The petition is resisted by the 1st respondent on the ground that permanent relief of injunction is based on one cause of action and the relief of possession on another cause of action and since they are different, the proposed amendment cannot be permitted.

(3.) The learned Munsif considered the rival contentions and held that cause of action for seeking the relief of possession changes from earlier one and that a prayer for mere eviction is not maintainable though such an amendment is permissible. Thus, he dismissed the petition.