HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1947 of 2010 Date: July 5, 2010 Between: Tamsetti Venugopal, S/o. Sambamurthy, Aged about 42 years, Business, R/o. Charbouli, Warangal … Petitioner And 1. Muthineni Seshirekha (died), 2. G. Kalavathi, W/o. Vittal Kumar, aged 48 years, H.No.3-4-53, household, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District, and others … Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.58 of 2002 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the order dated 17-03-2010 passed in I.A.No.1442 of 2007. By the aforesaid order, the court below allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permitting amendment of the written statement. The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.58 of 2002 for partition and separate possession of house and agricultural lands, which are A & B schedule properties, claiming that the earlier owner of the said properties, Smt. M. Kanakalaxmi, died intestate and she has inherited the said properties from her father late Sri Muddasani Ramachandram. In the suit, it is the case of the respondents/defendants that the original owner Sri Muddasani Ramachandram died testate and Smt. M. Kanakalaxmi did not inherit any of his properties. It is also their case that Smt. Kanakalaxmi during her lifetime filed suit in O.S.No.29 of 1982 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, for recovery of part of suit A schedule properties and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. The present application in I.A.No.1442 of 2007 is filed by the respondents herein seeking amendment of written statement on the ground that in view of filing of the suit in O.S.No.29 of 1982, the present claim by the petitioner is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. To that effect, they wanted to amend the written statement, which is permitted by the court below by the order impugned. Hence, the present civil revision petition. In this civil revision petition, it is submitted by Sri T.S. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner that, earlier also, the respondents/defendants filed I.A.No.971 of 2007 to reject plaint under Order VII Rule 11 on the very same ground and the said application was dismissed. It is also submitted that another application in I.A.No.1020 of 2007 was filed for framing of an issue to the effect that whether the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC and the same was not rejected by the court below by order dated 27-12-2007; in that view of the matter, on the very same set of grounds, the court below ought not to have permitted the amendment, as prayed, at this stage. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 herein that the amendment is necessary to resolve the actual dispute in controversy and merely because earlier application is rejected, the same is no ground to reject the plea for amendment of written statement. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others[1], wherein it is held that while considering applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, courts should allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. Further, the learned counsel has also relied on judgments of a learned single Judge of this court i n Bogirouthu Suryakantham and another Vs. Kandhi Sanyasinaidu and others[2] and Edla Shobha Rani Vs. Yegurla Rambabu and others[3]. With reference to the submissions of the learned counsel, it is to be noted that, earlier respondents/defendants filed I.A.Nos.971 and 1020 of 2007, but I.A.No.971 of 2007 was rejected as the same was filed for rejection of plaint. So far as I.A.No.1020 of 2007 is concerned, it is rejected mainly on the ground that in absence of any pleading, no issue need be framed with regard to bar of the suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC. However, that will not prevent the respondents/defendants to seek amendment of the written statement. Moreover, the amendment, which is permitted by the court below, is required to be allowed to resolve the real controversy between the parties. Merely because, evidence from the side of the plaintiff is over, the same is no ground to reject amendment, as much as the plea, which is sought to be put-forth is a legal plea in view of filing of the suit by the mother of the plaintiff during her lifetime. The petitioner herein will also have ample opportunity, by way of cross-examination, while recording evidence on behalf of defendants 1 to 5. No prejudice would be caused to the case of the petitioner if the aforesaid amendment is permitted. Further, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above supports the case of the respondents/defendants. Similarly, in the judgments Bogirouthu Suryakantham (2 supra) and Edla Shobha Rani (3 supra), the learned single Judge of this court has held that the proviso which is added to Order VI Rule 7 CPC, by way of Amending Act 22 of 2002, will not apply to the suits filed before such amendment into force. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this civil revision petition, warranting interference with the impugned order, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July , 2010 MRR [1] (2006) 4 SCC 385 [2] 2004 (2) ALD 290 [3] 2005(2) ALD 40