Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
2015 On The File Of The Learned Iii ... vs Unknown on 14 July, 2023
1
CMR, J.
C.R.P. No.1681 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Civil Revision Petition No.1681 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order,
dated 19.06.2023, passed in I.A.No.759 of 2023 in O.S.No.122 of
2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge,
Kakinada, whereby the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC,
seeking amendment of the plaint, was dismissed.
2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.122 of 2015 on the
file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The
said Suit was filed for declaration of her title in respect of the
plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession of the
same and also for permanent injunction. The defendant filed
written statement in the said Suit resisting the claim of the
plaintiff. After framing the issues, trial also commenced.
4) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present petition seeking
amendment of the plaint both in the cause-title and also to
permit her to take an additional plea. According to the plaintiff,
the Revenue Divisional Officer has cancelled the pattadar
CMR, J.
C.R.P. No.1681 of 2023
passbook. Therefore, she sought the said amendment to seek
remedy in relation to cancellation of the said pattadar passbook.
5) The trial Court by the impugned order, at para.9 of the
order, clearly held that the petitioner did not explain in the
affidavit as to why the said Revenue Divisional Officer was not
made as a party to the Suit when the Suit was filed. Further,
the trial Court also held that as the grievance of the petitioner
relates to cancellation of the pattadar passbook or issuance of
pattadar passbook by the Revenue Divisional Officer, that if she
feels aggrieved by the same, that she has to challenge the same
before the concerned revenue authorities. Therefore, the trial
Court was of the opinion that there is no necessity to permit the
petitioner to seek the amendment as sought for.
6) The Suit is of the year 2015, which is an old Suit. Now, in
the year 2023, after lapse of eight years, she has filed the
present petition to amend the plaint and to implead the Revenue
Divisional Officer as a party to the Suit. The main purpose is to
challenge the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer in
cancelling or issuing of the pattadar passbook. As rightly held by
the trial Court, that if that be the grievance of the petitioner, she
has to challenge the said orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer
CMR, J.
C.R.P. No.1681 of 2023
in cancelling or issuing the pattadar passbook before the
concerned revenue authorities. As rightly held by the trial Court
that the petitioner has to prefer a revision or appeal, as the case
may be, before the appropriate authority under the Record of
Rights Act challenging the orders of the Revenue Divisional
Officer. She, without challenging the said orders of the Revenue
Divisional Officer before the concerned revenue authorities,
cannot now seek amendment of the plaint to implead the
Revenue Divisional Officer in the Suit as a party and question
his orders in issuing or cancelling the pattadar passbooks.
7) Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and
this Court does not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the
impugned order warranting interference of this Court with the
said order.
8) The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited1, relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
AIR 2022 SC 4256
CMR, J.
C.R.P. No.1681 of 2023
9) Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the
admission stage. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:14.07.2023.
cs
