THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3257 of 2014 Dated: 26.09.2014 Between:
Ramidi Meenamma and another .. Petitioners and Kummari @ Dagillapuram Sunitha and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Y. Sudhakar The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 14.02.2014 in I.A.No.1730 of 2009 in O.S.No.968 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
Respondent No.1 filed the above-mentioned suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioners and other respondents. After framing of issues, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1730 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of plaint by adding certain prayers. This application has been allowed by the lower Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners, who are two of the defendants, filed this civil revision petition.
At the hearing, Mr. Y. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that by permitting respondent No.1 to amend the prayer for declaring that she is the owner of the suit land and also for declaring the registered sale deed bearing document No.1739/99 dated 07.06.1999 as null and void, the lower Court has allowed the time barred relief to be claimed by respondent No.1.
In my opinion, the suit filed for perpetual injunction can be converted into a declaratory suit and such conversion cannot be treated as altering the basic nature of the suit. As regards the limitation qua the amended prayer, the limitation being the mixed question of fact and law, the Court has to frame an issue and decide the same along with other issues, after trial. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The petitioners are, however, permitted to file an additional written statement. The lower Court shall frame additional issues based on the averments contained in the additional written statement including the one relating to the limitation.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to the directions given above.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4457 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th September, 2014 IBL