THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.873 OF 2013 Between:-
Manda Prameela. And Bura Gopala Krishna @ Gopal and another.
…Petitioner.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.873 OF 2013 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents 1 and 2.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 28-01-2013 in I.A.No.476 of 2011 in O.S.No.821 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
The Interlocutory Application was filed by the revision petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking amendment of the eastern boundary mentioned in the plaint schedule and also to explain about the description of the boundary which was originally made in the plaint schedule. The said petition was filed before the learned trial Court prior to commencement of the trial.
The petition was opposed by the respondents/defendants on the ground that the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC., seeking temporary injunction was dismissed and the said order was confirmed in C.M.No.71 of 2005 by the Principal District Judge, Warangal and also on the ground that the description of property is contrary to the documents relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff.
The learned Court below dismissed the amendment petition filed by the revision petitioner on the ground that the burden lies on him to prove his possession over the property and without seeking the relief of declaration of title or recovery of possession, the petitioner cannot maintain the amendment petition.
The view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be wholly misconceived. While allowing or dismissing the amendment petition, the Court is not bound to examine the merits of rival contentions. The Court has to see only whether the proposed amendment introduces altogether a new case or a new cause of action. An admission made by a party can always be explained or even withdrawn.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that only a big stone was there on the eastern boundary of the plaint schedule property, it is being worshipped as Goddess and it is being called as “Kanaka Durga Temple”, but in fact, no temple was in existence. This fact was sought to be explained by the petitioner by amending the eastern boundary of the schedule property.
The learned trial Court, in my view, ought to have allowed the amendment since only it relates to remove the discrepancy relating to the description of the suit property. Consequently, the order passed by the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, dated 28-1-2013 in I.A.No.476 of 2011 in O.S.No.821 of 2005 is set aside and the proposed amendment is allowed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 06-06-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.873 OF 2013 Date: 06-06-2014 Shr.