THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1417 of 2010 Dated: 12.04.2010 Between: N.Abdul Rahiman and 12 others … Petitioners And A.S.Ibrahim Sab and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 1417 of 2010 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.02.2010 in I.A.No.302 of 2009 in A.S.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. The revision petitioners are the appellants in A.S.No.68 of 2009. The said appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree granted by the trial court declaring the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property and directing delivery of possession of item No.1. In the appeal, the revision petitioners/appellants filed I.A.No.302 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to permit them to amend the written statement by raising a plea that so far as item No.1 of the suit schedule property was concerned, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was ousted by virtue of the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 18.02.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the order under revision, the application was dismissed by the Court below after going into the merits of the case and holding that the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not ousted as contended by the appellants. The procedure adopted by the Court below is apparently contrary to law since it is a well settled principle that while considering the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., it is not necessary for the Court to go into the tenability of the plea sought to be raised by way of amendment. What is required at that stage is only to consider whether the proposed amendment involves an issue necessary for determining the real question in controversy in the suit. Since the plea sought to be raised by the revision petitioners/appellants by way of amendment relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, which goes to the root of the proceedings, the Court below ought to have allowed the amendment and decided the issue at appropriate stage. It is true that the application for amendment was filed long after the initiation of the proceedings. However, the amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings provided, no prejudice is caused to the other side, which cannot be compensated by costs. Since the plea sought to be raised by way of amendment to the written statement is a pure legal plea, which does not require any evidence, I am of the opinion that by allowing the amendment, no injustice would be caused to the opposite party and therefore, the application cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners across the bar fairly conceded that the issue relating to jurisdiction now sought to be raised by way of amendment to the written statement requires no further evidence and that the revision petitioners/appellants would not adduce any further evidence either oral or documentary and it would be sufficient if the said issue is decided in the main appeal by formulating a specific point. The above statement of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is placed on record. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.302 of 2009 shall stand allowed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the main appeal following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order without fail. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 12.04.2010 Note : Issue C.C. in one week. B/o KLP