DANDAPTI PREMANANDAM Vs. ALURI MOHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, order, dated 12-03-2013, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, in I.A.No. 1536 of 2012 on O.S.No.225 of 2010. The petitioner filed the said application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration that the petitioner is the owner of an extent of 2 cents of land situated on the southern side of the plaint schedule property encroached by the respondent and to direct the respondent to deliver vacant possession of 2 cents of land. The trial court, upon hearing the argument of both the counsel, dismissed the application vide owner, dated 12-03-2013, on the ground that the proposed relief is hit by Order II Rule 2 (3) of CPC, Since no leave was obtained prior to filling of the application and that too, when the suit is coming up for trial.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order, dated 12-03-2013, passed in I.A.No. 225 of 2010, the present civil revision petition is filed. The grounds urged in the revision are that the impugned order is erroneous for the simple reason that Order II Rule 2 (3) of CPC is not applicable at this stage, when the petitioner is seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint suitably in view of the subsequent events, that the cause of action will not change, if the application is allowed for amendment of the plaint, and that the trial of the suit has not commenced and, hence, seeking leave to amend the pleadings in the plaint is within the purview of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

(3.) Though notice is served on the respondent, none appeared for him.