HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3425 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed by the plaintiffs seeking to revise the order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada, in I.A.No.85 of 2009 in O.S.No.132 of 2006 filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the written statement filed by them in O.S.No.132 of 2006 filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property. Initially, the defendants filed their written statement stating that in Re-settlement Register the land covered by three pattas was classified as “Tank Poramboke” and in the said Re-settlement Register till now, no changes have been made and that the plaintiffs have to initiate proceedings before the Joint Collector for effecting necessary changes in R.S.R. who is competent to do it and without following such procedure the plaintiffs cannot approach the Civil Court. It is also stated that the land of an extent of Ac.1.96 cents each, situated R.S.No.188/2 of Surampalli village, was assigned to M. Rattaiah, M. Nageswara Rao and K. Rama Krishna on 13.1.1988 under three pattas and as per the copy of D form patta filed by the plaintiffs, it was issued in the 1987 in RC.A.227/87, dated 13.1.1988 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Gannavaram and that the said three patta holders paid a sum of Rs.1,050/- each to the Government under three different challans. Now, the defendants sought amendment under paragraphs Nos.11 (a) to (d) stating about the action initiated under Act 9 of 1977 for violation of the conditions of the assignment and also stating about the filing of WP Nos.8506 of 2005, which was disposed of on 15.4.2005 etc. It is also stated that questioning the resumption proceedings, the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.12727 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by this Court permitting the plaintiffs to file an explanation to the impugned resumption notice and accordingly, the plaintiffs had submitted their explanation and thereafter, they along with 41 others have filed W.P.No.23073 of 2005, which was dismissed on 26.10.2005 and the writ appeal filed by them was also withdrawn on 13.2.2006 and then, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. It is further stated that the assignment was done on payment of land value being the project effected/benefited from the Project lands and therefore, payment of Rs.500/- per acre by the assignees cannot be termed as market value, but it is only a nominal land value levied being the project effected/benefited lands on payment in 15 equal instalments together with 6% interest thereon. The Court below while allowing the said application observed that the proposed amendment is in the nature of explanation to the pleas already taken in the written statement in paragraph No.11 and the proposed paragraph 11 (c) is with regard to the subsequent event i.e., the disposal of appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the appellate authority-cum-R.D.O. Nuzvid, and the proposed amendments are not inconsistent with earlier pleas and all those facts were already brought on record by way of cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses by the A.G.P and hence, there will not be any surprise to the plaintiffs and if the defendants are allowed to amend their written statement, it will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs. Sri T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that the trial had commenced and the plaintiffs’ witnesses were examined and at that stage, amendment of the written statement in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be allowed. It is well settled law that the provisio to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court in allowing the amendments altogether. Where the interest of justice requires the Court can exercise the discretion and allow the amendment, which does not cause any prejudice to the parties. In view of the reasons given by the Court below that if the defendants are allowed to amend their written statement, it will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs, I have no hesitation to hold that the order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:29th July, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3425 OF 2009 29.7.2011 Nn