ADUSUMILLI VENKATESWAR RAO Vs. CHALASANI HYMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was originally instituted as one for permanent injunction and the plaintiff applied for temporary injunction pending suit and the same was rejected by the trial Court as well as in appeal by the Appellate Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff came forward with an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for conversion of the suit into one for possession. The said application has been allowed and it is against this order that the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that conversion of the suit for permanent injunction into one for possession amounts to alteration of the nature of the suit and that the same should not have been permitted. Secondly, it is argued that the amendment application is filed beyond six months from the date on which, even according to the plaintiff, the defendants entered into possession subsequent to the suit.

(3.) In my opinion, both the contentions are untenable. It has been held in a number of cases by various High Courts, including our High Court that a suit for injunction can be converted into a suit for possession and that such conversion does not amount to alteration of the nature of the suit. It is surprising that in spite of the settled law (See K. Kameswara Rao vs. K. Rajyalakshmi (1) in this behalf in all the High Courts, still the same points are being raised in the Lower Courts.