IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2486 of 2010 BETWEEN: Killamsetti Mohana Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Gudia Seshibushanarao and another .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2486 of 2010 ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision proceedings is the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, in I.A.No.97 of 2009 in O.S.No.141 of 2002 dated 08.04.2010. I.A.No.97 of 2009 is a petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. to add the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Srikakulam; the Tehsildar, Kalchili; and the Gram Panchayat, S.R.C.Puram as parties to the Suit and, consequently, amend the plaint. It is the petitioner’s case, before the Court below, that he had sought a mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to demolish the shed shown as PLS in the site shown as “EGHF” on the NH-5 Road margin after ejecting the defendants therefrom; the defendants had stated that the Government had permitted them to install a tea stall; D.W.1, in her examination, had specifically stated that the Government had accorded permission for constructing a thatched hut for running a tea bunk; after completion of trial, and while arguing the matter, the Court entertained a doubt whether the Suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; and, in such circumstances, amendment of the cause title was necessitated. The respondents-defendants, in their counter affidavit, contended that a specific plea was taken in the written statement filed in the year 2002 regarding their being permitted to raise a shed by the Government; the revision petitioner herein had kept quiet for more than seven years and it was only when the matter was at the stage of final disposal, i.e., trial was concluded and arguments were heard, that the present application was filed. The Court below, in the order under revision, noted that the suit was reserved for judgment after hearing arguments on 02.07.2009; the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present I.A. on 06.07.2009; the petitioner himself had admitted that the defendants in the written statement had stated that the Government had permitted them to install the tea stall shown as PLS shed in the plaint plan; it was evident from the written statement that the defendants had taken an objection, at an earlier point of time, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; the petitioner had not taken any steps to add these parties till the matter was reserved for judgment; and there was no coherent explanation for non-filing of the petition till the suit was reserved for judgment. The Court below also noted that earlier on 27.07.2006 the suit was dismissed for default with costs; on an I.A. being filed the Court had re-opened the matter on payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs; the petitioner had again filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall D.W.1 for cross- examination which was dismissed on 04.12.2008; and all these circumstances clearly established that the petitioner-plaintiff was only trying to obstruct proceedings one way or the other by filing these type of objections. The Court below observed that, though the written statement was filed in the year 2002, the petitioner- plaintiff had not taken any steps for all these years to implead the Government and, all of a sudden, after completion of arguments, and after the suit was reserved for judgment, he had filed the present application without any cogent explanation for the delay of all these years. The Court below held that the application was devoid of merits, was filed only to drag on proceedings and, accordingly, dismissed the said application. Before this Court, Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would reiterate the very same submissions urged before the Court below. Learned counsel would submit that a liberal view should be taken for amendment of pleadings, and that a request for amendment of the pleadings can be sought at any stage of the Suit. The Court below has, on an analysis of the material on record, come to the conclusion that, though the written statement was filed taking a plea that they were permitted by the Government to raise the shed, the petitioner-plaintiff had kept quiet for seven years thereafter and had only filed this application, for amendment of cause title, after trial was completed, the suit was finally heard, and the matter was reserved for judgment. The conclusion of the Court below that the petitioner’s endeavour was only to drag on proceedings is based on the material on record and does not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 3rd September 2010 CVRK