HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1430 OF 2011 DATED 25th NOVEMBER, 201 BETWEEN Kadiyala @ Chundu Sita Mahalakshmi (died) anr …….Petitioners and Chundu Venkayamma and ors …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1430 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is ﬁled aggrieved by the order dated 24.2.2011 whereby the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku allowed I.A.No. 1625 of 2009 in O.S.No. 423 of 2000 ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ for amendment of the plaint while dismissing I.A.Nos. 1034 ,1071 and 1072 of 2009 ﬁled in the said suit by the petitioners/defendants seeking to strick oﬀ the entire plaint, dismiss the plaint as it is not in accordance with Order VII Rule 5 CP and it does not show any cause of action respectively. The facts in brief are that: the ﬁrst respondent herein claiming to be the wife of one Govindu ﬁled the aforesaid suit for partition against the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. Petitioners 1 and 2/Defendants 1 and 2 claimed to be the legal heirs of the said Govindu whereas respondents 2 and 3/Defendants 3 and 4 are his children. It is the case of the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of her late husband. The petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 ﬁled their written statement. It is stated that the matter is coming up for evidence of defendants. While so, the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ ﬁled I.A.No. 1625 of 2009 seeking amendment of plaint to the eﬀect that permanent injunction against petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties be granted. The petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 ﬁled Counter opposing the amendment of the plaint, while respondents 2 and 3/Defendants 3 and 4 did not choose to file a counter. The Court below in its elaborate common order, allowed I.A.No. 1625 of 2009 while dismissing the other applications ﬁled by the petitioners herein. The present Civil Revision Petition is ﬁled questioning the order in I.A.No. 1625 of 2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because of lack of due diligence and owing to inadvertence, the relief claimed in the amendment petition could not be sought at the ﬁrst instance, the same cannot be a ground to allow the amendment petition. He submitted that the amendment sought is wholly a belated relief and that no suﬃcient reasons are forthcoming from the accompanying aﬃdavit ﬁled therefor. He asserted that after the trial had commenced the plaintiﬀ moved the impugned application seeking amendment of the plaint and thus there was clear absence of due diligence on the part of the plaintiﬀ. He argued that allowing of the amendment is nothing but conversion of the suit for partition into one for permanent injunction and the same tantamount to change in cause of action referred to in the suit. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing for the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ, supporting the order under revision submitted that there is scramble for possession and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the relief of permanent injunction was therefore sought. He submitted that as Defendants 1 and 2 are trying the plaintiﬀ to dispossess her from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and as they are propagating to that eﬀect, there is no other alternative except to seek additional relief of permanent injunction. He further submitted that the court below rightly considered and allowed the application filed by the plaintiﬀ for amendment of plaint and that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order under revision. Perused the case file. The proposed amendment sought to be claimed reads as follows: “ This suit is also ﬁled seeking a permanent injunction against defendants 1 and 2 restraining them, their men and their followers from ever interfering with the plaintiﬀ’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties” Thus, it is clear that the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ is seeking alternative relief apart from the relief of partition. It does not amount to change of cause of action as a whole. The said amendment is only seeking an alternative relief and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is well settled that where an amendment sought to a plaint is not in the nature of changing the cause of action, the same may be allowed. That being so, an amendment of plaint seeking alternative relief could be permitted by the Court. It is also well settled proposition of law that the plaintiﬀ is entitled to plead even inconsistent pleas. In this case, she is only seeking alternative relief. Therefore it is clear that the impugned application was ﬁled for amendment of the plaint whereby neither cause of action changes nor does the relief materially affect. It is to be seen that Order VI Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of pleadings by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. However, the proviso thereto prohibits such application being allowed after the commencement of trial, 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. It therefore follows there from that the same is inserted obviously to ensure that the parties would not unduly prolong the litigation and they should be invariably diligent in pursuing the litigation. As such, an application for amendment of pleadings ﬁled eve after commencement of the trial needs to be considered if the facts and circumstances of a given case warrants keeping in view the above salutary purpose for which the proviso is inserted. In the case on hand also, it is the speciﬁc plea of the ﬁrst respondent that the petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 are trying to dispossess the plaintiﬀ from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. She also admitted in her aﬃdavit that her previous counsel inadvertently omitted to seek a speciﬁc relief in the main suit against petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 for permanent injunction. It is an admitted fact that the temporary injunction petition ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent was dismissed and she herself withdrew the appeal ﬁled against the said dismissal order. In those circumstances, it would follow that the ﬁrst respondent could have sought the relief of permanent injunction realizing that she omitted to seek the relief of permanent injunction. It is to be seen that the ﬁrst respondent/plaintiﬀ is a aged widow woman. It appears that proper legal advise was not tendered to her. As such the mistake appears to be lack of correct legal advise and no adverse reasons could possibly be attributable to the ﬁrst respondent for not claiming the relief of permanent injunction at the first instance. For the sake of argument, but not otherwise, even if the amendment is rejected, it would give rise to another suit or suits, which would amount to multiplicity of proceedings. The same can be avoided by deciding those disputes in the present suit itself. Further, even if the plaint is rejected at this stage, it cannot be expected that it would be put an end to litigation between the parties and that there is every likelihood of other proceedings to be initiated by the plaintiff. Further it is be to seen that allowing the amendment to the plaint at this juncture would not cause any prejudice to the other side. Allowing of the amendment to the plaint does not mean that the Court below has granted substantive relief of the plaintiﬀ. It is needless to state such granting of relief is always subject to the full-ﬂedged trial and adjudication based on the material evidence to be brought on record. For the foregoing discussion, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 25th November, 2011. Msnro