IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS. 2561 & 2563 OF 2006 CIVLI REVISION PETITION NO.2561 OF 2006 Between: Warangal Diocesan Society and others .... PETITIONERS A N D Vellanki Thirumala Prasad and others. …RESPONDENTS CIVL REVISION PETITION NO.2563 OF 2006 Between: Dr.T.Ravinder Rao and another .... PETITIONERS A N D Vallanki Thirumala Prasad and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2561 AND 2563 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order, dated 15.04.2006, in I.A. No.1012 of 2005 in O.S.No.203 of 2004, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint, was allowed. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 in both petitions are plaintiffs in the suit. The petitioners in C.R.P.No.2561 of 2006 are defendants 6 to 16 and the petitioners in C.R.P.No.2563 of 2006 are the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, in the suit. 3. For better appreciation of facts, parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial court. 4. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revisions may be stated as follows: O.S.No.203 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen and privies from interfering with the management and administration of plaintiff No.2 Trust and its properties mentioned in the schedule. 5. The defendants filed written statement along with counter claim. 6. The plaintiffs filed the present application to amend the plaint so as to seek a relief of mandatory injunction declaring that defendants Nos. 2 to 5 incurred disqualification as trustees of plaintiff No.2 trust and that the defendants 2 to 17 are not trustees of the plaintiff No.2 Trust and the claim of damages of Rs.10,00,000/- which was allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petition under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. is filed to reject the plaint as the Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and without deciding the issue, the amendment petition was allowed; that a specific plea has been taken that the suit is not maintainable, in view of the bar under Section 151 of the Endowments Act, 1987, and to get over the pecuniary jurisdiction the present amendment sought for, praying to grant Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages, so that the District Court will get jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents herein contended that a specific plea has been taken as to why defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were disqualified from the Trust because of their misdeeds; and that the respondents sought for amendment of the prayer only; that it would not change the cause of action or introduce a new cause of action and the amendment sought for, is in consonance with the pleadings; that unless there is a specific plea with regard to the damages, no amount of evidence can be let in, by the respondents; that the trial court upon consideration of evidence available on record, rightly allowed the petition and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. Originally the suit is field for injunction simplicitor restraining the defendants from interfering with the management and administration of plaintiff No.2 Trust. Thereafter, the present amendment petition is filed seeking declaration and also mandatory injunction. Amendment of plaint is governed by Order VI Rule 17 CPC which reads as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties” 9. The whole purpose and object of allowing the pleadings especially when the issues have not been settled, is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings so that the controversy or dispute between the parties can be set at rest in the same trial and to avoid unnecessary delay of filing another suit. A specific plea has been taken as to how the acts of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are against the interests of plaintiff No.2 Trust. Because of their acts and omissions against the interests of plaintiff No.2 trust, they are to be disqualified as trustees of the plaintiff No.2 Trust. But there is no prayer of declaration sought for in the plaint with regard to the disqualification of their acts. So, now, the present application is filed seeking amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of declaration that defendant Nos. 2 to 15 suffered disqualification in view of their acts and also the mandatory injunction to direct all the defendants to vacate the suit schedule premises and not to claim themselves as trustees of plaintiff No.2 trust. 10. It is pleaded in the plaint that defendants 6 to 16 are not entitled to manage the affairs of the trust. Therefore, that means they are managing the properties. But the prayer has not been asked for. So, the present amendment is only with regard to amendment of prayer and it is in consonance with the pleadings in the plaint. 11. The third prayer is that the defendants 2 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the un-liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff No.2. No doubt, no such damages are claimed in the plaint. The alleged miss-deeds of the defendants are specifically stated in the plaint. Though the plaintiffs have specifically not claimed any damages in the plaint, but at the same time, the foundation has been laid as to how they are entitled for damages. Even otherwise also this aspect cannot be said to be a totally new plea. If the amendment petition is allowed, it would not change the structure of the suit, nor create any new cause of action for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial court upon consideration of evidence on record, rightly allowed the petition and the said order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 11. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that inspite of filing a petition under Order VII Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. the same has not been taken up in I.A.Nos.515 of 2004, 723 of 2004, 1111 of 2005 and 743 of 2004. Therefore, the trial court can be given a direction to decide the I.As. filed by the petitioners after giving opportunity to both the parties and pass necessary orders. 12. It is brought to the notice of this Court by virtue of the amendment petition that the pecuniary jurisdiction would be changed and thereby the District Court gets the jurisdiction. Even if the suit is transferred to District Court, the learned District Judge is directed to dispose of the applications within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J JUNE 08, 2010. YVL