GANDHINAGAR TRUST Vs. SATTUR NARSIMHULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein filed this revision petition aggrieved by the order dtd. 23/10/2013 passed in I.A.No.487 of 2010 in O.S.No.6 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar.

(2.) The petitioners herein would contend that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the case and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. They would further contend that they are only asking to delete the prayer to declare the plaintiffs as Secretary and Convenor respectively of Gandhi Nagar Trust, Jadcherla, and also to delete the same words in para one of fourth page in the plaint. They would also further contend that this Court directed them to file an application seeking amendment and as such they filed the present application and more over there is no interlink between the prayers. Further, even if the evidence is adduced regarding the said prayer in the plaint, the same can be eschewed if the amendment is allowed.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners herein on the ground that the petitioners asked for two reliefs i.e. to declare the plaintiffs as Secretary and Convener of Gandhinagar Trust, Jadcherla, and for declaration of acts of the defendants as illegal since they are no way concerned to the Trust. It was observed that U.Sugnanam-second plaintiff is the Convener and Sattur Narsimlu-frist defendant was the Secretary and one Yoganand is no more. B.Ashok Kumar filed an application to implead him as Secretary of the Trust, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the relief in the main suit is personal relief. Questioning the same he filed a revision before this Court vide C.R.P.No.1492 of 2010 and this Court while dismissing the revision held that there is a mistake in the prayer paragraph and as such gave an opportunity to file an application before the Court below. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.169 of 2001 in O.S.No.54 of 2010 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, and the Court held that Yoganand is not the Secretary and Sugnanam is not the Convener and the said order was upheld in CMA No.17 of 2001 on the file of learned District Judge, Mahabubnagar, which was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.5491 of 2001 and it was remained unchallenged. The Court below also observed that Yoganand, who himself styled as Secretary of Gandhinagar Trust, was removed by way of resolution on the charges of corruption and misappropriation and it was confirmed on 21.12.1985 and that Y.Sugnanam is not member of the Trust and as such he cannot be the Convener of Trust and that the defendants are actual and real members of the Trust. When the same is under challenge, the same was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.1492, 1493 and 1494 of 2010 permitting the petitioners to file an application seeking amendment, if law permits. Accordingly, the petitioners came up with the present application. The Court below further observed that the reliefs are interlinked and the second relief to declare the plaintiffs as Secretary and Convener cannot be omitted at this stage because the main suit is at the stage of arguments. With the said observations, the Court below dismissed. But the petitioners herein challenged the same on the grounds mentioned above.