THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.10 OF 2010 DATED: 18-01-2011 Between: Bonda Vijaya. ..... PETITIONER And Bonda Koteswara Rao. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 09-12-2009, in I.A.No.286 of 2009 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein-plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit, initially for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of a flat, described in the plaint schedule and situated at Amberpet, Hyderabad. According to the plaintiff, the trial Court originally passed orders for maintenance of status q u o and the petitioner herein-defendant assailed the same by way of Civil Revision Petition and this Court suspended the order of status quo for a period of one week and during that period petitioner herein forcibly took possession by highhandedly dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff. It is further alleged that subsequently the injunction application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. As on that day, possession remained with the defendant. In view of the alleged dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff sought to amend the plaint by seeking the relief of recovery of possession and also offered to pay the deficit Court fee. Petitioner-defendant opposed the same on the ground that as on the date of filing of the suit also the defendant was in possession and the injunction petition was rightly disposed of by the trial Court and the proposed amendment for recovery of possession as if the plaintiff was dispossessed subsequent to filing of the suit, is untenable. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge by impugned order, dated 09-12-2009, allowed the said application mainly on the ground that no prejudice will be caused to the defendant by permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint, as proposed, and the same would shorten the litigation, as otherwise it will lead to a further round of litigation between the parties. 5. Admittedly, the suit was initially filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the flat as on the date of the suit. Defendant contested the same. Plaintiff alleged that subsequent to the suspension of the order of status quo, defendant highhandedly dispossessed the plaintiff and the same led to dismissal of the injunction petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant would contend that the dismissal of the injunction petition has become final and the same is not challenged by the plaintiff. 7. It is to be noted that the said order, refusing to grant injunction, was interlocutory in its nature and ambit. Plaintiff is admitting that the defendant is now in possession of the schedule-flat. He therefore seeks recovery of possession. The question as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant was in possession of the flat as on the date of filing of the suit and whether or not the plaintiff was dispossessed subsequent to filing of the suit, as alleged by the plaintiff, are matters to be considered on evidence during the course of trial. The fact remains that the plaintiff is now not in possession of the flat and so he seeks recovery of possession. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession or not is again a matter to be decided during the course of trial. As rightly observed by the trial Court, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant by permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint, as proposed, seeking recovery of possession. Plaintiff would succeed only if he is able to establish his claim of title and also possession, but not otherwise. The trial Court has also rightly observed that refusal to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint, would certainly lead to another round of litigation. The proposed amendment would help in resolving the dispute in a comprehensive manner in the present suit itself without driving the parties to further litigation. Of course, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the observation made by the trial Court in the impugned order that shift of possession to the defendant is a subsequent development after filing of the suit, is rather unwarranted. Perhaps, the trial Court intended that the alleged dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant is a development subsequent to filing of the suit. However, whatever observations made in the impugned order, being only interlocutory in nature, will not come in the way of either of the parties while passing the final judgment on completion of the trial. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the application for amendment is highly belated and also not in a proper form as the contents of the proposed amendment, not only in the affidavit but also in the proposed amendment, are drafted in the first person, but not in the third person. Though the contents of affidavit can be in the first person, the averments in the proposed amendment ought to have been in the third person to be in proper form and shape. However, the erroneous drafting of the proposed amendments pertaining to its form should not come in the way of disposal of the application on its merits when once it is found that the plaintiff is entitled to seek the proposed amendment. Plaintiff is therefore given liberty to file a fresh fair copy of the plaint, incorporating the proposed amendment in proper form and shape, without however changing the contents. 9. So far as the delay is concerned, it is established proposition that the amendment of the plaint can be sought at any stage of the proceedings and the delay, if any, in filing the application, should not come in the way if the plaintiff is otherwise found to be entitled to seek the amendment. In fact, the trial Court has ordered payment of costs of Rs.200/- by the plaintiff, perhaps, to compensate the delay in filing of the petition. In the circumstances, it is considered that the plaintiff is entitled to seek the proposed amendment of the plaint. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Plaintiff is directed to pay costs of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred only) to the defendant instead of Rs.200/-, as ordered by the trial Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above with liberty to file fresh copy of the plaint containing the proposed amendment in the third person. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th January, 2011. Tsy