IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2966 of 2014 BETWEEN Ch.Venkata Subbaiah and others AND Gattamaneni Venkateswarlu and others ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners, who are defendants in O.S.No.9 of 2004 before the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, Prakasam District, questioned the order of the trial court in permitting the respondents/plaintiffs to amend the plaint to seek an alternative prayer for recovery of possession. The said application was allowed under the order of the trial court, dated 13.06.2014, which is questioned by the petitioners herein inter alia on the ground that such amendment now sought for is highly belated as even according to the respondents/plaintiffs, they were allegedly dispossessed after the injunction application viz., I.A.No.155 of 2004 was dismissed on 31.08.2004. Petitioners, therefore, confirm that if there is any truth in the said allegation of the respondents/plaintiffs, they should have sought the relief now sought for ten years back. It is also claimed that there was an earlier litigation in O.S.No.125 of 2008, wherein the petitioners herein had succeeded and the judgment of the trial court was also confirmed by the High Court in A.S.No.36 of 1996.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, states that the plea of the plaintiffs claiming that they were dispossessed and, therefore, seeking relief of recovery of possession is clearly barred by time and ought not to have been permitted by the trial court in view of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
4. The court below has considered the aforesaid aspect and found that the said proviso is not applicable to suits, which were filed prior to C.P.C. Amendment Act of 2002. The trial court also found that the plea as to limitation or delay amounts to sitting over the merits of the proposed amendment and that issue can be gone into at the stage of final decision of the suit. The proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiffs only relates to alternative relief of recovery of possession and the trial of the case is already completed. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs also states that no further evidence is required and it is only a plea taken in the alternative. Since the suit admittedly is at the stage of arguments, in my view, permitting the present amendment, where the respondents/plaintiffs would seek to take an alternative plea of recovery of possession, is clearly sustainable and the discretion exercised by the trial court does not deserve to be interfered with. However, it has to be noted that the trial court shall not permit the parties to lead any further evidence in view of the statement of the respondents/plaintiffs that no further evidence is required on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Civil revision petition is, therefore, disposed of. The trial court shall, if necessary, frame an additional issue and permit both sides to raise their respective contentions with reference to alternative relief sought for by the amendment in question. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 6, 2014 LMV