IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5538 of 2008 Between: Chelluboyina Apparao … Petitioner And: The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Thantadi village & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.5538 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.11.2008 in IA No.562 of 2008 in OS No.104 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule l17 CPC, seeking permission to amend the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration that the notice dated 16.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 issued by the respondents/defendants is illegal and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, including poultry business thereon. 4. The respondents filed written statement, contesting the suit. While the matter was coming up for settlement of issues, the petitioner filed counter, opposing the said application. The petitioner sought to file rejoinder to the said counter with the permission of the Court. By impugned order, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed IA No.562 of 2008 and also the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file rejoinder. 5. According to the petitioner, he has been running a poultry business in the plaint schedule property of Ac.1.00 covered by Sy.No.172 of Yethapalem village, after obtaining necessary permission from the panchayat authorities and that the respondents have issued a notice demanding the plaintiff to submit ‘no pollution certificate’ from Primary Health Centre, Atchutapuram and also ‘no objection certificate’ from the local villagers. The defendants would contend that initially, the plaintiff started poultry with less than 100 birds and now their number has increased to 4000 and local villagers have been objecting for the existence of the poultry farm in the midst of the residential houses on the ground that it is causing health hazards to the local residents and therefore, the respondents issued notice demanding the petitioner to obtain no objection certificate from the medical authorities and also local villages. The petitioner sought to amend the plaint by raising certain pleadings, which are set out as (a) to (e) of the petition, which are in the nature of explaining the contentions raised by the respondents/defendants in the written statement and also by way of elaboration to the original plea raised by the petitioner in the plaint. 6. It is not disputed that the application for the amendment was filed when the matter stood at the stage of settlement of issues i.e., even before commencement of the trial. The application of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 in the present case does not therefore arise. The proposed amendment do not cause any prejudice to the respondents in their defence and they do not introduce any new case nor any new cause of action nor change the nature or character of the suit. The proposed amendment is rather in the nature of elaborating the original plea raised by the petitioner in the plaint by way of reply to the contentions raised by the defendants in the written statement. 7. Under those circumstances, in order to enable the parties to raise all necessary and relevant pleas before the Court for effective and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute and in the interest of fair trial, it is considered that the petitioner can be permitted to amend the plaint as proposed. It is needless to say that the respondents/defendants are at liberty to file additional written statement, if they are so advised. The impugned order dismissing the application on the ground that the proposed amendment may change the nature of the suit is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.09.2011 bss