VALLALA KRISHNAVENI Vs. VALLALA NAGA VENKATA LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff No.2, aggrieved by the order, dated 08.11.2018, passed in I.A.No.915 of 2018 in O.S.No.105 of 2013, by the I Additional District Judge at Khammam, whereby, the petition filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking consequential amendment to the pleadings in the plaint as mentioned in the application, was allowed with a direction to the revision petitioner/plaintiff No.2 to file a neat copy with consequential amendment only in the cause title as "Plaintiff died through L.R./V.Krishna Veni" and with no amendment in the body of the plaint.

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

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff No.2 would submit that the original plaintiff died. The revision petitioner/plaintiff No.2, being the daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff and as she got the suit schedule property under a Will Deed, dated 03.08.2011, is a necessary party to the proceedings. She sought permission to allow her to come on record and to make consequential amendments to the relevant portion of the plaint. The Court below directed the revision petitioner/plaintiff No.2 to file a neat copy with consequential amendment only in the cause title as "Plaintiff died through L.R./V.Krishna Veni" and no amendment in the body of the plaint was allowed. Therefore, the impugned order is erroneous. The amendment sought would not change the nature of the suit. The Court below ought to have allowed all the consequential amendments sought and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the revision petitioner/plaintiff No.2 to make all consequential amendments to the plaint, in addition to the amendment of the cause title of the plaint.