THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3843 OF 2011 Dated: 28.12.2011 Between : Smt.D.Bharathi Devi and another … Petitioners And P.Seshagiri Rao and 2 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3843 OF 2011 O R D E R: The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.1318 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff. The suit is filed against the revision petitioners (defendants 1 and 2) as well as the respondents 2 and 3 herein (defendants 3 and 4) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property including the construction. The suit property is described as plot Nos.5 and 7 each admeasuring 30 square yards situated in the lay out in survey No.69 of Miyapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction directing demolition of the compound wall at the points specified therein. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit claim. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1001 of 2003 for appointment of an advocate commissioner to make local inspection of the suit schedule plots and note down the physical features. The said application was allowed by order dated 04.06.2005 and an advocate commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit plots including the existence of the compound wall. However, it was reported by the advocate commissioner that the surveyor was unable to locate survey Nos.68 and 69 of Miyapur village and survey No.222 of Madeenaguda village and the further proceedings of the Commissioner are still pending. While so, the plaintiff came with another application i.e., I.A.No.1496 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C with a prayer to amend the plaint as well as the interlocutory applications filed by him, including I.A.No.1001 of 2003 filed for appointment of commissioner, by adding paragraphs 10 (a) to (c) and to substitute paragraph 16 as well as the plaint schedules. The said application was opposed by the defendants 1 and 2 contending inter alia that the proposed amendment would change the entire nature of the suit and it would severely affect the defence taken by the defendants 1 and 2. However, the Court below by order dated 04.08.2011 allowed I.A.No.1496 of 2009 as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed by the defendants 1 and 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent/plaintiff, who appeared in person. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noticed that except referring to the case of the plaintiff, the Court below did not consider any of the objections raised by the defendants, while allowing the application for amendment. As could be seen from the material available on record, the amendment of plaint was sought pleading that such amendment is necessary in order to remove any difficulties that may be caused due to certain discrepancies that came to light after the filing of the suit. Therefore, it is all the more necessary for the Court to consider the specific objection raised by the defendants 1 and 2 that the proposed amendment, if allowed would alter the very nature of the suit and record a finding thereupon. It is apparent that the Court below did not make any exercise in that regard and the proposed amendment was allowed without recording a finding that the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Such a cryptic order is unsustainable under law and therefore, the order under revision is hereby set aside. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Court below to reconsider I.A.No.1496 of 2009 in O.S.No.1318 of 2009 and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.12.2011 Ivd