THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4921 of 2010 Date:17.8.2011 Between: Shaik Mahaboob Shareef and another. ………...Petitioners. And Chagal Marri Yasop …… Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4921 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20.9.2010 passed in I.A.No.371 of 2010 in O.S.No.722 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.722 of 2007. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction in respect of Ac.0-47 cents in S.No.685 bounded by East – Road; West – Land of Chakala Subbarayudu; South – Inam land belongs to Siva Temple and North – Land of Meda Subbarayadu. The 1st plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that he purchased Ac.0-47 cents out of Ac.1-42 cents in S.No.685 under a registered sale deed dated 18.8.1992. It is also stated in the plaint that the predecessors of the vendors of the defendant acquired right over Ac.0-95 cents out of Ac.1- 42 cents in S.No.685. The defendant filed written statement resisting the relief sought for by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.371 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking amendment of the plaint. By way of proposed amendment, the 1st plaintiff took the plea of his being in possession of Ac.0-92 cents. The amendment application has been resisted by the defendant by filing counter. 3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit is of the year 2007 and there are no grounds to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint with regard to the extent of land in their possession and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 20.9.2010. Hence this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 08.07.2011. Respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs came to know of the extent of land in their occupation after filing the suit and therefore, they moved the application seeking amendment of the plaint with regard to the extent of land in their occupation. A further submission has been made that the petitioners/plaintiffs came to know of the actual extent few days prior to the filing of the application. Therefore, there are no latches on the part of the petitioners/plaintiffs in moving the application seeking amendment to the extent of land in their occupation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submits that the plaint averments are very clear as to how the petitioners/plaintiffs acquired the property and therefore, at this distance of time, they cannot be permitted to amend their plea as to the extent of the land in their occupation. 8. I have gone through the plaint pleadings. The 1st plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint that he got Ac.0-47 cents out of Ac.1-42 cents in S.No.685 under a registered sale deed dated 18.8.1992. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the predecessors of the vendors of the defendant acquired Ac.0-95 cents out of Ac.1-42 cents in S.No.685. The total extent of S.No.685 as per plaint pleadings is Ac.1-42 cents. The plaintiffs claimed Ac.0-47 cents out of Ac.1-42 cents. The plaintiffs’ admission in the pleadings in that the predecessors of the vendors of the defendant acquired right over Ac.0-95 cents. Such is the pleading in the original plaint, permitting the plaintiffs with regard to the extent of land in their occupation causes much prejudice to the defence of the respondent/defendant. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the petition. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in the order impugned in the revision in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:17.08.2011 mrb