GADHEVENI MEENA KUMARI Vs. MERUGU VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order, dated 17.07.2018, passed in I.A.No.404 of 2018 in O.S.No.112 of 2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, Mancherial District, wherein the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to permit the revision petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint as per the annexure appended to the subject Interlocutory Application, along with consequential amendments, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the Original Suit was filed for declaration of title, perpetual injunction and to declare the Sale Deed, dated 27.03.2010, executed by respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of respondent No.9/defendant No.9, as not valid and binding on the revision petitioner/plaintiff. During pendency of the said Suit, registered Sale Deed, dated 05.12.2011, executed by respondent Nos.1 to 7/defendant Nos.1 to 7 in favour of respondent No.18/defendant No.18 and registered Sale Deed, dated 11.09.2013, executed by respondent No.18/defendant No.18 in favour of respondent No.19/defendant No.19 were brought into existence, and respondent No.19/defendant No.19 occupied the suit schedule property and raised structures. Since there was dispossession of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and construction of a house in the suit schedule property, after filing of the subject Suit, amendment of the plaint, seeking recovery of possession and cancellation of Sale Deeds, dated 05.12.2011 and 11.09.2013, was sought. The revision petitioner/plaintiff was diligent in pursuing the subject Suit. The substantial question with regard to title and entitlement of the revision petitioner/plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property is required to be determined in the subject Suit. Moreover, the proposed amendment is within limitation and ultimately, prayed to allow the subject Interlocutory Application, as prayed for, by setting aside the impugned order. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh,2009 9 Laws(SC) 45.