IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIAL REVISION PETITION NO.1942 OF 2009 Date:31.07.2009. Between: Daravath Biksha .... Petitioner And: The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Khammam and another ....Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIAL REVISION PETITION NO.1942 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, in IA No.750 of 2008 in OS No.195 of 2005 dated 19.12.2008, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The aforesaid IA No.750 of 2008 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C, by the 2nd respondent herein (Plaintiff No.2 in the suit), seeking amendment of the plaint by adding para 5(a)thereto. The 1st plaintiff, the mother of the 2nd plaintiff, had originally filed the suit seeking perpetual injunction against the revision petitioner herein restraining him from interfering with her peaceful and lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the 2nd plaintiff (respondent No.2 herein) that he had gone to the United States of America in order to see his children, that he was there for a period of about one year, that in the interregnum his mother (the 1st plaintiff) had gifted the suit schedule property in favour of his brothers, respondents No.5 & 6 herein by executing registered gift deed dated 17.8.2006 and delivering vacant physical possession in favour of the said persons, that his brothers were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property and, thereafter, they had executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the 2nd plaintiff (2nd respondent herein), which was duly registered on 6.8.2007. These are the facts which are sought to be incorporated in the plaint by way of an amendment. In the order under revision, the court below observed that the parties to the suit could amend their pleadings at any stage of the suit, that the court would not allow any amendment once the trial has commenced unless the party could not do so before commencement of trial despite exercising due diligence, that the facts, which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment, were events which took place after trial had commended and that the amendment did not seek substitution of a new cause of action for the original cause of action which arose on 6.4.2005. The trial court further observed that plaintiff No.2 had alleged that he was the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same in the name of his mother i.e, the 1st plaintiff in the suit and, though the legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 were impleaded in the suit after her death, none of them had disputed the 2nd plaintiff's right over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court held that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had been in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date on which the cause of action for the suit arose i.e., on 6.4.2005, that the proposed amendment was sought only to explain the flow of title and also flow of possession from the plaintiffs to his brothers and from them to the 2nd petitioner again which took place subsequent to the filing of the suit, that no new cause of action had arisen which was likely to substitute the original cause of action and which was likely to alter the nature of the suit itself, that as the proposed amendment was based upon events which had occurred subsequent to the filing of the suit, the contention of the respondent in the I.A, that the petitioners cannot seek amendment of the plaint after commencement of the trial, was not tenable. Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, after the suit was filed, the 1st plaintiff had sold the property on 17.8.2006 to respondents No.5 and 6 i.e., (respondents No.5 and 6 herein), prior to their executing a gift deed in favour of the 2nd respondent on 6.8.2007, that, on the date on which cause of action arose on 6.4.2005, plaintiff No.1 was not the owner of the suit schedule property and, as a result, from the date on which she had gifted the property to the respondents No.5 and 6 on 17.8.2006, no injunction could have been sought by her against the revision petitioner herein. Learned counsel would further submit that amendment could not be ordered of a plaint in a non existence suit and, merely because the 2nd respondent was brought on record as a legal representative of the 1st plaintiff, it did not entitle him to seek amendment of the plaint, more so when, on the date of her death, the 1st plaintiff was neither the owner of the property nor was she in possession of the suit schedule property. According to the Learned counsel the relief sought for in the suit could not have been granted. Amendment of pleadings should, ordinarily, be permitted except where trial of the suit has already commenced. The court below has held that the relief sought by way of amendment was only to bring on record events which took place subsequent to the filing of the suit. The contentions raised before this Court by Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner can always be agitated during the course of the trial of the suit itself and mere amendment of the pleadings does not preclude the revision petitioner from raising these contentions and seeking adjudication thereof during the course of trial of the suit. Further the jurisdiction exercised by this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is supervisory and this Court would, ordinarily, not interfere with such orders sane in a clear case of illegality or where the order passed has resulted in manifest injustice. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below in permitting amendment of the plaint by incorporating para 5(a) therein. Needless to state that this order does not preclude the revision petitioner from raising all the contentions raised before this Court, before the trial court during the course of the trial of the suit. The Revision Petition, however, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:31.7.2009. Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN REVISION PETITION NO.1942 OF 2009 Date:31.07.2009 Gk.