Telangana High Court
Muthyam Suryanarayana vs Bondugula Varija Reddy on 31 March, 2021
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
****
C.R.P.No.1407 OF 2020
Between:
Muthyam Suryanarayana
....Petitioner
And
Bondugula Varija Reddy & others
....Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 31.03.2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No
_________________________
T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI T.AMARNATH GOUD
+ C.R.P.No.1407 OF 2020
% DATED 31st March, 2021
# Muthyam Suryanarayana
....Petitioner
Vs.
$ Bondugula Varija Reddy & others
....Respondents
<Gist:
>Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri M.D.Mophapatra
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Arjun Madupu
? Cases Referred :
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
C.R.P.No.1407 of 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order
dated 08.12.2020 in I.A.No.558 of 2020 in I.A.No.462 of 2020
in O.S.No.104 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Gajwel (for short, "trial Court").
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for grant of perpetual
injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant and his
agents etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit
schedule property. They also filed I.A.No.462 of 2020 for
grant of ad-interim injunction and injunction was granted on
24.06.2020. While preparing the schedule of property, its
boundaries were mistakenly mentioned on the oral
instructions of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.558 of 2020 to amend the
schedule of the property.
3. The petitioner/defendant in the said I.A., filed a counter
denying the averments stating that the present I.A., filed for
amendment of boundaries at the time hearing arguments in
injunction petition shows that the respondents/plaintiffs are
not fair and approached the Court and obtained ad-interim
injunction order by suppressing the real facts by abusing
process of law. The rough sketch enclosed to the plaint is not
tallying with ground reality and that they showed wrong
boundaries and obtained ad-interim injunction and therefore
prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. The trial Court, on consideration of the record, accepted
the plea of the respondents/plaintiffs and allowed the
interlocutory application. Aggrieved thereby, the present CRP
is filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/defendant submitted that the settled principle of
law is that the amendment can be allowed if it is not changing
the nature of the suit, but in the instant case, the
amendment sought will completely changes the nature of
suit.
6. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a counter affidavit,
denying the allegations in the Civil Revision Petition. They
contended that the mistake occurred in the petition schedule
of I.A.No.462 of 2020 is a curable defect and allowing the
application in favour of the respondents will not cause any
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner herein.
7. Heard both sides.
8. It is the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that they
have mistakenly shown the boundaries of the property in the
petition schedule and now, they want to amend the schedule
of the property. Per contrary, the Learned counsel for the
defendant contended that amendment of the schedule will
change the nature of the property and the same cannot be
allowed at this stage.
9. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual
injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from
interfering with their possession and also filed injunction
petition I.A.No.462 of 2020 and the learned trial Court
granted ad-interim injunction on 24.06.2020. Meanwhile, the
respondents filed I.A.No.558 of 2020 for amendment of the
petition schedule property at the stage of submitting
arguments in the injunction petition.
10. The schedule of the property in I.A.No.462 of 2020 in
which injunction was granted by order dated 24.06.2020 is as
under:
North : Road
South : Plaintiff and her sister's land
East : Land in Sy.No.414
West : Neighbours property.
The schedule of property in I.A.No.558 of 2020 is as under:
North : Neighbours land with compound wall
South : Land in Sy.No.414
East : National Highway 44
West : Land of plaintiffs.
It is evident that the boundaries in both the I.As., are
different and do not tally with each other. In such case, it
amounts to a fresh cause of action.
11. It is the duty of the plaintiffs to file the suit by enclosing
correct schedule of the property. Once the suit is filed and
ad-interim injunction is granted basing on the schedule of the
property annexed to the plaint by the plaintiffs, amending the
schedule thereafter will change the nature of the property.
The respondents/plaintiffs have completely changed the
schedule of the property and it is contended by the
petitioner/defendant that there is no such property as alleged
by the respondents/plaintiffs. The amendment sought by the
respondents/plaintiffs will introduce a fresh cause of action
and therefore, the petitioner/defendant will suffer irreparable
loss by the proposed amendment. The trial Court erred in
coming to the conclusion that no prejudice will be caused to
the petitioner/defendant if the schedule of the property is
amended. Even whether any prejudice is caused to the
petitioner/defendant or not is not the criteria, and such an
amendment is not permissible under law. In fact, it is always
open for the respondents/plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and
file a fresh suit with correct schedule of the property.
Accordingly, the said order is liable to be set aside.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed, setting aside the order dated 08.12.2020 in
I.A.No.558 of 2020 in I.A.No.462 of 2020 in O.S.No.104 of
2020 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel.
No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if
any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand
dismissed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
Date: 31-03-2021.
Note:
LR copy to be marked
B/o
Shr
