R VIKRAM Vs. MEENA BEN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R. Chandra sekhar Reddy and Sri D. Madhava Rao, counsel representing the revision petitioner and the contesting respondents.

(2.) CRP M. P. No. 1760/2009 had been filed praying for the relief of vacating the orders made in the C. R. P. and though the matter is coming under the caption of interlocutory, at the request of the Counsel on record, the C. R. P. itself was heard finally and the same is being disposed of.

(3.) SRI R. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the learned iii Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad totally erred in allowing the application permitting the amendment of the plaint since by allowing the proposed amendment, the character of the suit will be changed and the cause of action also would be totally changed. The Counsel also would maintain that the proposed amendment is totally contrary to the original pleading and the reliefs prayed for. The Counsel would further maintain that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands or the purpose of the changed reliefs. The counsel also would maintain that the very suit itself is not maintainable even for the relief of specific performance since it is in relation to a non-existing agreement and even otherwise now praying for possession being radically a different prayer altogether, such amendment would substantially alter the nature of the suit. The Counsel also incidentally pointed out to the Court fee and would maintain that even on that ground the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in Rqfeeq Ahmed v. Hameed Ahmed Khan and others, 2006 (3) ALD 660 = 2006 (5) ALT 580.