ANNAPUREDDY CHINNA VENKATAMMA Vs. ANNAPUREDDY KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, passed in IA 2136 of 1997 in OS 245 of 1990, dated 26-6-1998. By the impugned order the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff is refused by dismissing the petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the proposed amendment is only clarificatory in nature and the same could have been allowed and the Court below was in error in holding that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit and accordingly prejudices the case of the defendant. He also submitted that by allowing the proposed amendment, the defendants would not be prejudiced. Therefore the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in refusing the amendment sought for by the plaintiff and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa, AIR 1995 SC 1498. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents/ defendants contended that by the proposed amendment the plaintiff has sought for deleting paragraph No.4(b) by substituting a new paragraph and he also sought for the amendment of the value of the plaint schedule property. He also sought for deletion of the earlier reliefs at paragraphs 1 and 2 by substituting new prayer and if such an amendment is allowed, the defendants could be definitely prejudiced and in those circumstances the Court below has rightly refused the proposed amendment. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Heeralal v. V. Kalyan Mal, AIR 1998 SC 618. He also submitted that such an amendment should not be allowed since it prejudices the case of the other side and the impugned order being a discretionary order, does not call for inference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions I think it appropriate to note the facts of the case. The petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.245 of 1990 for injunction regarding Ac.4.56 in S/No.13/1. In the suit he alleged that the plaintiff has been in possession of the plaint schedule land and the defendants have been interfering with his possession and accordingly sought for permanent injunction. Latter by filing an amendment petition in IA No.588 of 1993 sought for the amendment of the plaint contending that after his prayer for injunction was refused, the defendants have dispossessed him and the plaintiff was entitled to the half share and accordingly he is entitled for the same and consequently he sought for amendment of the plaint by inserting paras 4(a) and 4(b). He also sought for amendment of the relief column in the plaint for declaring the plaintiff's half share in the plaint schedule land and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share by metes and bounds from the defendants. That amendment was allowed by the Court below by its order dated 19-9-1994. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the present petition for amendment in IA No.2136 of 1997 seeking to delete paragraph No.4(b) and also seeking amendment to paras 7 and 8 regarding the Court fee. In the relief column in para 9 he prayed for substitution of relief Nos.1 and 2 by new reliefs for declaration of plaintiff's title and for a decree for possession. The Court below refused the proposed amendment by passing the impugned order. Therefore the plaintiff has come up by way of this revision petition.