THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4710 OF 2011 Order: Heard Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel representing Sri C.Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jaganmohan Reddy Kotha, learned counsel for the first respondent. Though the second respondent was served with the notice of the revision before admission, none entered appearance on her behalf and the revision petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. I.A. No. 232 of 2011 in O.S. No. 45 of 1997 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Nagarkurnool was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for permission to amend the plaint to include in the prayer a direction to the defendants to execute a rectification deed specifying S. No. 383 as S. No. 283 in Ex.C1 and in default to get the same executed through Court. The petitioner- plaintiff referred to the survey number being altered in Ex.C1, due to which, he got the plaint amended seeking declaration of his title and possession over the plaint schedule land and a consequential permanent injunction and for declaring S. No. 383 as S. No. 283 in the Schedule of Ex.C1 as well as for damages and other consequential reliefs. He referred to a complaint said to have been made to the District Collector, who directed an enquiry by the Registration Department and the Registration Department refusing to take any action in view of the pendency of the Suit. In the counter filed on behalf of the first defendant, the allegations were denied and the alleged alteration was also disputed as the very execution of Ex.C1 was denied by the first defendant. The suit was already amended as per the orders of the High Court in C.R.P. No. 5504 of 2007, dated 24.2.2011 and the first defendant did not receive any notice from the Registration Department. The first defendant claimed that the plaintiff was filing petition after petition to drag on the proceedings on some pretext or the other. The first defendant also claimed that any rights, which the plaintiff claims are also barred by limitation. Hence, he desired that the petition be dismissed. The trial Court passed the impugned order firstly opining that it cannot go into the question of limitation after the High Court allowed I.A. No. 306 of 2007. The trial Court noted that as per the orders in C.R.P. No. 5504 of 2007 by the High Court, the prayer for amendment incorporating the relief of declaration of title over the suit land consequentially and for substitution of the original prayer with a fresh prayer for such declaration of title, possession, permanent injunction and declaration that S. No.383 is S. No. 283 in Schedule of Ex.C1, apart from the other reliefs was allowed. The trial Court opined that the correction of survey number in Ex.C1 was incorporated in the prayer by I.A. No. 306 of 2007 itself, but, the particulars of the alleged complaint to the Collector are unavailable. The present application appears to be manifestation of the intention to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court, therefore, felt that it is an abuse of process of law and dismissed the same with costs. The plaintiff in this revision contended that illegal and irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court resulted in the dismissal of the petition and the amendment is very much required for an effective adjudication of the Suit. He has no intention to drag on the proceedings nor was any abuse of process of law involved and therefore, the plaintiff desired the impugned order to be reversed. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in revision. The order of this Court in C.R.P. No. 5504 of 2007, dated 24.2.2011 allowing I.A. No. 306 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint itself resulted in incorporation of the relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequential permanent injunction. That apart, a specific relief of declaring S.No. 383 as S. No. 283 in the Schedule of Ex.C1 was also incorporated by the said order, in the plaint and irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the complaint by the plaintiff to the District Collector and the consequential inaction of the District Registrar due to the pendency of the Suit, nothing substantial appeared to be requested to be further included in the Suit by way of this amendment. Any direction to the defendant to execute a rectification deed, rectifying S. No. 383 as S. No. 283 in Ex.C1 and in default to execute the same through Court clearly appears to be a superfluous request, which becomes redundant, if declaration sought for by the plaintiff to the effect that S. No. 383 is S. No. 283 in Schedule of Ex.C1 were to be granted by the Court on merits. The declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule land coupled with any declaration that the survey number mentioned in the Schedule of Ex. C1 has to be corrected, clearly takes care of the interests of the plaintiff in this regard, which are attempted to be protected through the amendment proposed in this petition and irrespective of the question of limitation or the intention of the plaintiff in filing this petition, the relief sought for clearly appears to be unnecessary in the light of the orders of this Court in C.R.P. No. 5504 of 2007 and the consequential allowing of I.A. No. 306 of 2007. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore disposed of as unnecessary. No costs. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD,J Date: 22nd December, 2011 pnb