1. This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the order in I.A.No.926 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pargi, wherein the petitioner filed the said I.A., under Order VI Rule 17 r/w.Section 151 of CPC, praying the Court to amend the plaint.
2. The petitioner is the appellant in O.S.No.23 of 2009 and he filed the suit for perpetual injunction claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit property.
3. The respondents/defendants filed written statement stating that there is no existence of suit schedule property and registered sale deed is a fabricated one. He has also filed W.P.No.36986 of 2017 before this Court seeking direction to the Tahsildar, Kulakcherla Mandal for survey and fixing of Sy.No.137 of Veerapur Village and fixing of boundaries of the suit schedule property. The surveyor after issuing notice to all the land owners fixed the date as 03.02.2022 to fix the boundaries to Sy.No.137. It is their further contention that the Mandal Surveyor and Tahsildar colluded with the respondents and without surveying the land, prepared a false report. Basing on the report of Mandal Surveyor, Tahsildar gave a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad and Mandal Surveyor has nothing to do with the possession of individuals. His duty is only to survey the suit land as per the directions but the Mandal Surveyor failed to discharge his duties and gave a false report stating that this petitioner is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Taking advantage of the false report of the Surveyor, the respondent dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit schedule property and occupied high handedly on 01.03.2021. Due to the pandemic situation he could not file amendment petition seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. As such prayed the Court to allow the amendment application.
4. The respondents therein filed counter denying that they dispossessed petitioner on 01.03.2021. According to them, petitioner is never in possession of the suit schedule property. After completion of the evidence, to fill the lacunaes of the case and to grab their land illegally, he filed the amendment petition and as per Order VI Rule 17 CPC, pleadings cannot be amended after commencement of trial. As such he prayed the Court to dismiss the said application.
5. Basing on the above, the trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the said I.A., stating that amendment of pleadings is not maintainable after commencement of trial and also relied on the judgment in Sayanna and another Vs Thimmanna and another 2002 (5) ALD 419 wherein it was held that when a suit is filed for perpetual injunction, the subsequent application for amendment seeking to convert the suit into declaration of title is not maintainable and also observed that there is an inordinate delay in filing the amendment petition.
6. Heard Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the delay occurred due to the pandemic situation and he relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re; Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo Moto W.P.No.3 of 2020 wherein the Supreme Court extended the limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022, observing the previous extensions, the actual balance period of limitation remaining with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, the long period shall apply and also clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stands excluded in computing the period prescribed under Section 23 (4) and 29 (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws which prescribes period of limitation for institution of proceedings.
8. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P (C) No.3 of 2020 and the observations of the trial Court that it is barred by limitation is not tenable. Further, according to the petitioner, during pendency of trial, he was dispossessed by the respondents. Therefore, he filed petition for amendment of pleadings and also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar Vs Ayyakannu and another AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3369, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph No.7 observed as under :
“In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the trial Court it was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiff’s revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings.”
9. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the present case also the petitioner herein was dispossessed. According to him, he was dispossessed during pendency of the trial. As such, amending the plaint will not prejudice the respondents and he can file written statement for amended plaint. Instead of filing fresh suit, amendment of plaint is suffice under Order VI Rule 17 CPC also the proviso says that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial is commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not raise the matter before commencement of trial.
10. In the present case, the petitioner was dispossessed during pendency of the trial. As such dismissing the petition for amendment of plaint is not in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and I.A.No.926 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2009 is allowed. The limitation period starts from the date of filing of the petition.
11. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
