THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1018 OF 2022
Smt Golla Janaki, W/o.Nagaraju, Aged 32 years,
Occ: Housewife, R/o.Byravakunta Village,
Devarakonda Mandal, Kurnool District
... Petitioner
Versus
Mr.Kamsala Nagarjuna Achari, S/o.Gowri Prasad,
Aged 38 years, Hindu, Agriculture,
R/o. Byravakunta Village,
Devarakonda Mandal, Kurnool District
... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : M/s.A.Chandraiah Naidu
Counsel for respondent : Mr.Sreekanth Reddy Ambati
ORDER:
The defendant in the Suit filed the above revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 22.4.2022 in I.A.No.142 of 2022 in O.S. No.96 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda.
2. The respondent being the plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.96 of 2019 against the revision petitioner/defendant for grant of permanent injunction. The schedule of the property is shown as Acs.7.00 out of Acs.13.15 cents in Survey No.714/1 bounded by East: Golla Nagaraju Land, West: Marati Veeranjineyulu Land, 2 North: Kamsala Nagaraju Achari, South: Jangala Ramanjineyulu and Mahesh Land.
3. Pending the suit plaintiff filed I.A. No.142 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., it was contended interalia that the land in Survey No.714 is consisting total extent of Acs.13.15 cents; that out of love and affection maternal aunt by name Smt.Golla Bala Nagamma @ Nagamma, W/o.Veeraiah gifted the schedule property to the plaintiff by way of three gift settlement deeds viz., (1) Land to an extent of Acs.3.00 under registered gift settlement deed vide document No.739/2016 dated 11.3.2016; (2) Land to an extent of Acs.3.00 under registered gift settlement deed vide document No.740/2016 dated 11.3.2016; (3) Land to an extent of Ac.1.00 under registered gift settlement deed vide document No.741/2016 dated 11.3.2016; that the total extent is Acs.7.00; that at the time of filing of the suit, the counsel by oversight shown the total schedule property of Acs.7.00 in one block, however, the schedule was not shown as per the registered gift deeds and hence the application is filed seeking amendment of the schedule property into Schedule A, B & C and to add para No.7 in the plaint.
3
4. Counter affidavit was filed by the revision petitioner/ defendant opposing the application. It was contended inter alia that the defendant is the absolute owner of the petition schedule landed property in Survey No.714/2 to an extent of Acs.6.15 cents; that out of love and affection, her husband gifted the above land to the defendant through a registered gift deed vide document No.2076/2017 dated 28.6.2017; that survey No.714 was sub-divided into 714/1 and 714/2; that the defendant's land admeasuring Acs.6.15 cents in survey No.714 fell into survey No.714/2; that the said extent of Acs.6.15 cents is situated towards western and eastern side of the defendant's property; that the plaintiff is having land in survey No.714 to an extent of Acs.4.77 cents towards western side of the defendant's land, and another piece of land to an extent of Ac.1.73 cents and Ac.0.50 cents in survey No.714/1; that the plaintiff's land is situated in between the lands of the defendant and eventually prayed to dismiss the application.
5. By an order dated 22.4.2022 the lower Court allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition is filed.
6. Heard Mr.A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the respondent.
4
7. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant would contend that proper reasons were not assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The respondent/plaintiff filed the application for grant of ad interim injunction. After grant of ad interim injunction, the application is filed seeking amendment and the same is impermissible. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Muthyam Suryanarayana vs. Bondugula Varija Reddy1.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order impugned in this revision petition.
9. As can be seen from the material on record, the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor. The property mentioned in the plaint schedule is an extent of Acs.7.00 out of Acs.13.15 cents situated in survey No.714/1 showing it as a contiguous plot. By virtue of the amendment, the plaintiff sought to divide the plaint schedule property into Schedule A, B and C. Boundaries on Eastern and Western side remain the same. According to the plaintiff, he noticed the mistake qua the suit schedule after filing of the suit and therefore filed the application seeking to amend the plaint schedule as per the registered documents. 1 MANU/TL.0214/2021 5
10. The counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the affidavit does not contain proper reasons for seeking amendment and he relies upon the judgment in Muthyam Suryanarayana vs. Bondugula Varija Reddy.
11. In the above cited case, the suit was filed and after the trial Court granted ad interim injunction, the plaint was amended. The observation of the Court therein is that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the property and hence the amendment was negatived. However, in the case on hand, a perusal of the schedule filed along with the suit and the proposed schedule, the boundaries on eastern side and western side remain the same. The schedule is sought to be changed in accordance with the registered documents. Extent of the schedule remains the same as also boundaries on Eastern and Western side. Neither the nature of the suit is changed nor is the extent of the land changed. Thus, this court finds no perversity in the order passed by the Court below. It is always open to the revision petitioner to file additional written statement by raising necessary pleas.
12. In view of the discussion above, since the judicious discretion exercised by the trial Court is neither perverse nor 6 exceeding its jurisdiction, this Court finds no merit in the revision.
13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI October 28, 2022.
vasu