(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dt. 27.09.2022 in I.A.No. 835/2019 in O.S.No.451/2017 on the file of the Principal junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaramand pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copies of the Order in I.A.No. 835/2019 in O.S.No.451/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.451 of 2017 on the file of the Principal junior Civil Judge-cum¬Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaramand pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the Interim orders granted in I.A.No.2/2023 vide orders dated 13.02.2023 pending disposal of the CRP.N0.317 of 2023 and pass)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.835 of 2019 in O.S.No.451 of 2017 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the petitioner/plaintiff, while respondents are respondents/defendants in I.A.No.835 of 2019 in O.S.No.451 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram.

3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:

                  (i) The petitioner filed the suit vide O.S.No.451 of 2017 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. After three years from the date of filing of the suit and after the interim order of injunction was made absolute, the petitioner filed I.A.No.835 of 2019 for amendment of three out of four boundaries of the plaint schedule property stating that due to illiteracy and innocence he could not furnish correct boundaries at the time of drafting plaint and a few days prior to filing of the petition, his Advocate came to the plaint schedule property and found that boundaries of plaint schedule properties were wrongly mentioned and hence it is very much essential to substitute the wrong boundaries with correct ones, else, much and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused.

                  (ii) The respondents resisted the claim made by the petitioner by filing counter, inter alia contending that as the petitioner, though an illiterate, had never been in possession of the property, he did not know the correct boundary particulars and further filing petition after lapse of two years since the date of filing of the suit without any satisfactory explanation is impermissible. That the petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal.

                  (iii) Upon considering the pleadings and contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition holding that the petition was belated and that too after making the interim injunction orders absolute, amendment of the plaint schedule is impermissible.

                  (iv) The said dismissal order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Rama Shankara Rao, learned counsel for respondents.

5. Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and grounds of revision would contend that the proposed amendment would not defeat the valuable rights of the defence accrued on the defendants by lapse of time and even in such eventuality also to meet the ends of justice such an amendment can be permitted. He would further contend that the proposed amendment would neither alter the character of the suit nor introduce a new cause of action and moreover no fresh relief is sought, however, the learned trial Judge upon misconception of law and in utter ignorance of the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petition. He would further contend that the respondents/defendants did not dispute the boundaries to be incorrect and to advance substantial justice and for adjudication of the lis in proper perspective, amendment of boundaries is very much essential and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, Sri B.Rama Shankara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the trial court, would contend that the petition was belated and the petition filed for amendment lacks tenable and valid reasons. He would further contend that the petitioner had never been in possession of the plaint schedule property and hence he could not give correct descriptive particulars of the property and the court below upon scanning the facts and circumstances of the case rightly dismissed the petition and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. By way of the proposed amendment the petitioner sought to change three out of four boundaries of the plaint schedule property. The suit is filed for permanent injunction. As could be seen from the impugned order, the interim injunction orders granted were made absolute. The petition seeking amendment was filed after lapse of nearly three (03) years from the date of filing of the plaint and after the interim injunction orders were made absolute. The petition filed for amendment was dismissed mainly on the ground of belated filing and that too the amendment was not for correcting single boundary but three boundaries out of four.

9. As could be perceived from the written statement, the identity of the plaint schedule is not in dispute. According to the petitioner, the proposed amendment is to substitute the earlier incorrectly mentioned boundaries with correct ones. In the counter the respondents did not at all dispute that the boundaries now sought to be substituted are incorrect.

10. In Jangili Venkateswarlu & Ors. Vs. Bandaru Omkaraiah & Another(2002 SCC OnLine AP 986), Division Bench of this Court held thus:

                  “18. The scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with amendment of pleading, is well settled. While considering an application for amendment of pleadings, the court has to take into consideration whether such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Though it is true that the Court while exercising the discretion under Order 6 Rule 17 is entitled to permit amendment of pleadings which it thinks just at any stage of the proceedings, it is always essential for the court to bear in mind that such an amendment shall not cause prejudice to the other side, which cannot be compensated in costs. It is also well-settled that an amendment which would defeat the valuable right of defence accrued to the opposite party by lapse of time shall not be normally allowed. However, the Court in exercise of its discretion can permit even such amendment taking into consideration the special circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice. Particularly, where the proposed amendment does not alter the character of the suit nor introduce a new cause of action and the fresh relief sought is nothing but an alternative relief based on the allegations which are already pleaded in the plaint, it open for the Court to permit even a claim barred by limitation to meet the ends of justice. In other words, a relief barred by limitation can be allowed to be sought by way of amendment of pleadings only in special circumstances and where no injustice is caused to the opposite party.”

11. In the instant case, the proposed amendment does not alter the character of the suit nor introduce a new cause of action and moreover no fresh relief is sought for and that too the question of the claim being barred by limitation does not arise and adding to the above, the proposed amendment of boundaries represent true picture of the plaint schedule property. Further, it would avoid multifarious litigation.

12. Admittedly, there is delay in seeking amendment, since the petition was moved nearly three years after filing of the suit. However, that cannot be a good cause or reason to negate the amendment that would be essential to advance substantial justice.

13. In Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh((2009)10 Supreme Court Cases 626), the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

                  “5. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment.

                  6. It is also well settled that even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by costs or otherwise. (See B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai [(2000) 1 SCC 712 : AIR 2000 SC 614] .) Accordingly, we do not find any reason to hold that only because there was some delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint, such prayer for amendment cannot be allowed.”

14. Since the amendment of boundaries is essential since the same represent the true picture of the property and as the respondents did not deny the earlier boundaries or the proposed amended boundaries, the mere delay in filing the amendment petition cannot be made basis for dismissal. Further, since there is no dispute regarding identity of the property, making absolute the interim injunction orders is of no avail. However, the delay caused in seeking amendment can be compensated by way of imposing costs on the petitioner.

15. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.835 of 2019 in O.S.No.451 of 2017 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. Consequently, I.A.No.835 of 2019 in O.S.No.451 of 2017 is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) by the petitioner to the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.