IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2558 of 2013
Between:
Edla Raghupal Reddy ..... PETITIONER/2nd DEFENDANT And Indla Mallamma and another . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2558 of 2013
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.04.2013 passed in I.A.No.207/2012 in O.S.No.142/2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/2nd defendant. There is no representation for the respondents.
The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction simplicitor. The revision petitioner/2nd defendant filed written statement in the said suit mentioning the survey number of the property as Sy.No.234/A2, but later he came to know that the said survey number was corrected in the revenue records as Sy.No.234/B as per the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the appeal filed under Sec.5(5) of A.P.Rights in Lands & Pattedar Passbooks Act. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed amendment petition in I.A.No.207/2012 seeking amendment of the survey number wherever it was noted in the written statement as Sy.No.234/B in the place of Sy.No.234/A2. The said petition was opposed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff contending that the said amendment would change the nature of the case and the petitioner has been trying to introduce altogether a new version by amending the survey number.
The Court below dismissed the said petition holding that the petitioner wants to add certain paragraphs stating that furnishing incorrect survey number is on account of typographical mistake and therefore it would introduce a new case and the case of the plaintiff would be prejudiced. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner/2nd defendant filed the present civil revision petition.
The revision petitioner only wants to correct the survey number. Or.6 Rule-17 of CPC provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Thus, wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow the amendment of the pleadings of either of the parties.
While dealing with the amendment applications, it is absolutely not necessary and also impermissible to go into the merits of the respective contentions. The Court is only concerned as to whether an amendment which is sought for by a party can be allowed within the parameters of Or.6 Rule-17 CPC. Under law, it is quite permissible for a party to withdraw an admission which is previously made. Further, mentioning incorrect survey number cannot be treated as an admission of fact by the revision petitioner. If misdescription of the property arises out of a genuine or bona fide mistake, it can be corrected even after passing of a decree also.
The Court below in the instant case took an erroneous view that by amending the survey number, the revision petitioner is introducing altogether a new case. If the 1st respondent/plaintiff is of the view that the revision petitioner sought the amendment with some ulterior purpose, she can also seek amendment of the plaint with the permission of the Court, but the amendment proposed by the revision petitioner ought not to have been refused by the Court below.
For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 02.04.2013 is set aside and I.A.No.207/2012 in O.S.No.142/2009 is allowed, permitting the revision petitioner only to correct the survey number as Sy.No.234/B in the place of Sy.No.234/A2, wherever it occurred in the written statement. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 17.04.2014 Dsr