THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP No. 4451 of 2014 Date of Judgment: 26.12.2014 Between:
Podapati Vijayalakshmi and others …Petitioners And Bodapati Venkateswarlu ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP No. 4451 of 2014 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants.
This revision petition is preferred by the defendants who are aggrieved by the order of trial Court dated 12.3.2014 allowing IA No. 173 of 2008 in O.S.No. 752 of 2004.
Originally the suit was filed for perpetual injunction and it was sought to be converted into one for recovery of possession by the plaintiff on the ground that during the pendency of the suit he lost possession. The application for amendment of the suit was allowed by the trial Court under the impugned order to ensure that there would not be any multiplicity of civil litigation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants contends that even on the date of filing of the suit also the defendants were in possession and they had opposed the interim injunction application also before the trial Court and knowing fully well that the defendants were in possession, the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction and it was only by way of amendment the relief of recovery of possession was sought.
Even accepting the defendants’ case as correct, though the plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction, but on the basis of his averment that he lost the possession, the trial Court allowed the amendment of the plaint by converting the suit into one for recovery of possession. The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction can always seek relief for recovery of possession subject to, however, limitation bar under Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act. Since that is not the situation in the present case, the impugned order does not deserve any interference. However, in view of the amendment of the relief, the defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement and take additional pleas, if they deem appropriate and thereby participate in the trial of the suit. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed along with miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 26.12.2014 KR