THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3480 of 2011 Date:19th September, 2011 Between: Palavali Nagi Reddy S/o.late P.Bayapu Reddy ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Utukuru Balakrishna S/o. late U.Nadipireddappa .....Respondent/Defendant *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3480 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 04.08.2011, passed in I.A.No.549 of 2011 in O.S.No.295 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint averments. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.295 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, are: The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.295 of 2010. The plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of ‘EF wall’ of the plaint plan. For better appreciation, I may refer the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit, which reads as hereunder: “The plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Defendant from interfering with FE wall of plaintiff in any manner i.e., by placing sun shade on in any other manner or open windows or ventilators on plaintiff’s side by means of permanent injunction and direct defendant to pay costs of suit, and grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case.” The respondent/defendant filed written statement. Para.9 of the written statement needs to be noted and it is thus: “9) The defendant has to making any construction over the plaintiff’s property and not causing any damage to the wall of FE wall as alleged in the petition, the defendant submits that he making house construction within his property shown as FEGH and IJ in the plaint plan for that purpose, he also obtained plan approval by the Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation BP No.326, dated 04.05.2010. And the same approved plan is herewith filed. There is no prima-facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this petition has to be dismissed in limini.” Issues came to be settled and thereupon, the case stood posted for trial. At that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff moved I.A.No.549 of 2011 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of plaint pleadings. Particulars of amendments as stated in the petition read as hereunder: “Particulars of Amendment: (1) Add after the sentence “while so the Defendant highhandedly putting pillars” in para. 6 of the plaint as follows: “and also pipe line adjoining F E and Jally of the pillars”. (2) In Para.7 of the plaint in cause of action para, after the sentence “and while making construction” add the following: By putting pillars with jally adjoining F E wall and by putting Pipe line adjoining F E Wall”. (3) In para 8 of the plaint add as column (2) for the relief of Permanent Injunction a notional value of Rs.3000/- is fixed and a Court fee of Rs.261/- is paid under Section 26[c] of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act. (4) In Para.9 after the sentence “by means of Permanent Injunction Add the following: “direct the Defendant to remove pipe line and jally of the pillars and windows opposite to plaintiff house adjoining F E wall by means of Mandatory Injunction.” In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.549 of 2011, it is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff forgot to ask for mandatory injunction. 3. The respondent/defendant filed counter resisting the application. It is specifically stated in the counter that the respondent/defendant made the construction in his property by leaving 2 ft. rastha on southern side. It is also stated in the counter with regard to appointment of advocate commissioner. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to make out any valid ground for permitting him to amend the plaint averments and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 04.08.2011. Hence, this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 27.08.2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the respondent/defendant, having constructed the house without leaving any open space towards the south, is trying to lay pipeline to cause damage to the F E Wall of the petitioner/plaintiff and since the construction has been made by the respondent/defendant during the pendency of the suit, the amendment has become imminent. Learned counsel took me to the plaint plan in support of his submissions. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.549 of 2011 does not contain any reason for seeking mandatory injunction and therefore, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff. 8. Order VI, Rule 17 CPC deals with amendment of pleadings, which reads as hereunder: 17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 9. Indisputably, issues in the suit on hand have been settled and the suit stood posted for trial. The affidavit filed in support of the amendment application i.e. I.A.No.549 of 2011 does not contain any reasons for asking the relief of mandatory injunction in place of perpetual injunction. In the absence of any reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th September, 2011 cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3480 of 2011 Date:19th September, 2011