THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3384 & 3538 of 2011 Dated:- 23rd September 2011 Between:- C.R.P.No.3384 of 2011 D.Lokeswara Rao …Petitioner AND Jalepalli Vykunta Rao …Respondent C.R.P.No.3538 of 2011 D.Lokeswara Rao …Petitioner AND Jalepalli Vykunta Rao and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3384 & 3538 of 2011 COMMON ORDER:- Since the facts, issues and the parties involved are one and the same in both these revisions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. C.R.P.No.3384 of 2011 is directed against the order in I.A.No.443 of 2010 and C.R.P.No. 3538 of 2011 is directed against the order in I.A.No.383 of 2010 passed in O.S.No.142 of 2004, which were disposed of by a common order dated 12.07.2011 by the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner filed the Original Suit for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.No.401 of 2004 seeking temporary injunction. By order dated 12.07.2005, said I.A. was disposed of by the Court below directing both the parties to maintain status quo. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.29 of 2005 before the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. On 30.11.2006, the said C.M.A. was allowed setting aside the status quo order passed by the Court below. It appears that in the meanwhile, the respondent has completed the construction and subsequently sold the property to one Y.Saraswathi – second respondent in C.R.P.No.3538 of 2011. 4. In the chief affidavit filed by the respondent herein before the Court below, he had mentioned about the sale deed executed by him in favour of said Y.Saraswathi. Admittedly, the respondent filed chief affidavit before the Court below on 14.06.2010. Then the trial proceeded, advocate commissioner and D.W.1 were examined and then the matter was posted for arguments. At that juncture, the petitioner filed the two applications, i.e., I.A.No.383 of 2010 seeking to implead said Y.Saraswathi as a party to the suit and permitting him to make necessary amendment in the plaint; and I.A.No.443 of 2010 seeking permission to amend the suit relief as one for declaration of the title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. 5. The Court below, by its common order dated 12.07.2011, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not diligent and that he had taken inconsistent pleas in his application, i.e., at one stage, he had stated that he warned said Y.Saraswathi not to purchase the property on 03.06.2009 itself and at another juncture, he had taken a plea that he came to know about the purchase of the property by Y.Saraswathi only on the filing of the chief affidavit by the respondents and that there are laches on the part of the petitioner. Holding so, the Court below dismissed both the applications which are being challenged by the petitioner in both these revisions. 6. Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case between Vishamodh Gowbhuja Samaj, Giriraj Lane, Hyderabad Vs. Mahboob Begum (died) by LRs.[1] submitted that it is not advisable to drive the parties to another round of litigation and in stead of it, the petitioner may be permitted to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. though initially the suit was filed for injunction simplicitor. His main submission is that though initially the suit for injunction was filed, but in view of the subsequent developments and in view of the highhanded construction carried out by the respondent over the suit schedule property and the subsequent sale by the respondent in favour of Y.Saraswathi, the proposed amendment became necessary and similarly, adding of the subsequent purchaser as a party to the proceedings has also become necessary and that the Court below has filed to consider all these aspects and dismissed the applications. 7. Per contra, Sri VL.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and since then it has been pending and that only in the year 2010 that too when the suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed the applications and that the record reveals that the petitioner had knowledge about the sale made by the respondent in the year 2009 itself and when the respondent was making constructions, the petitioner kept quiet and did not raise his little finger and now, after completion of construction and after execution of sale deeds by the respondent, both the applications have been filed by the petitioner to protract he litigation at its fag end and that the Court below was right in dismissing both the applications. 8. In view of the above rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration in both these revisions is whether the impugned common order of the Court below is sustainable or not. 9. Though it appears that the petitioner stated in his affidavit that said Y.Saraswathi came forward to purchase the property and that he had informed her about the pendency of the litigation before the Court below and that the husband of Y.Saraswathi negotiated with him and that he offered to sell the western side property but subsequently, both of them could not agree on the sale consideration amount and as such, the negotiations failed. The petitioner’s further case is that when D.W.1 filed his chief affidavit, then he came to know that the respondent executed the sale deed in favour of said Y.Saraswathi on 03.06.2009. What was stated by the petitioner is that he warned said Y.Saraswathi not to purchase the property and subsequently and that there were discussions between himself and the husband of said Y.Saraswathi with regard to the purchase of the western side property by Y.Saraswathi and her husband but he never stated in his affidavit that he had knowledge about the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of Y.Saraswathi. 10. It has to be seen that admittedly, the chief affidavit was filed before the Court below on 14.06.2010 and both the applications have been filed on 29.11.2010. It may be a fact that the respondent might have made some constructions over the suit schedule property during the pendency of the proceedings, but however, the fact remains that there was an order of status quo issued in I.A.No.401 of 2004 from 12.07.2005 till 30.11.2006 and subsequently the said status quo order was set aside in C.M.A.No.29 of 2005. Thus, it appears that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court below, the respondent has made some constructions. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has been agitating his rights and now, he is seeking to amend the plaint and to implead said Y.Saraswathi, the subsequent purchaser of the property and also amendment seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. 11. Though it appears that there are some laches on the part of the petitioner and there was some delay in filing the applications before the Court below, but substantial justice has to be done to the parties and it is not desirable to drive the parties to another round of litigation. The Court below, taking these aspects into consideration, ought to have allowed the applications though they were filed at the fag end of the litigation. It is always better to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case so as to avoid another round of litigation between the parties. 12. In view of the above, both the revisions should succeed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. Consequently, I.A.No.443 of 2010 and I.A.No.383 of 2010 filed before the Court below stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 23rd September, 2011 Bvv [1] 2006 (4) ALD 23