THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4398 and 4400 of 2009 29.1.2010 Between Telagamsetti Satyanarayana, S/o.Suryanarayana @ Surya Rao And another … Petitioners/defendants AND Samatham Rajeswara Rao, S/o.Veera Kotayya … Respondent/plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4398 and 4400 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: As these two civil revision petitions arise out of two interlocutory applications in the same suit being O.S.No.244 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, both the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.244 of 2008. It is instituted by the respondent for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into plaint schedule land, which is a casurina tope situated in various survey numbers of Rustumbada Village. Defendants are opposing the suit contending that they are in possession of the land, that they are not trespassers and that there has been oral lease in their favour from the original owners from whom the land was purchased. The suit is coming up for trial. At that stage, defendants filed I.A.No.225 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to amend the written statement and add paragraph (10-A) after existing paragraph (10) in the written statement. They also filed I.A.No.397 of 2009 under Order VIII Rule 1 (Rule 1A) and Order XIII Rule 2 of CPC. They alleged that grandfather of defendants originally took item No.1 of suit schedule property on lease from Ayyagari Yogendra Sarma and that the owner executed Kowlu Kathu dated 24.4.1970 in respect of item No.1 of schedule property. They also allege that Kowlu Kathu was mixed up with other records and, therefore, they could not show to the advocates. Learned trial Judge dismissed both the applications by two separate orders on 15.7.2009. CRP No.4398 of 2009 is filed against the order in I.A.No.225 of 2009 and CRP No.4400 of 2009 is filed against the order in I.A.No.397 of 2009. This Court heard learned Counsel for petitioners/ defendants and learned Counsel for respondent/plaintiff. Reliance is placed on Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain v Ramakant Eknath Jadoo[1] and Devasahayam v P.Savithramma[2]. In the written statement filed in February 2009, defendants alleged that suit schedule property originally belonged to Yogendra Sarma and that defendants and their ancestors are in peaceful possession and enjoyment as tenants. In paragraph 10 of written statement, they alleged as under. Under those circumstances, it is these Defendants that have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property as cultivating tenants. As the lease is an oral lease, the Plaintiff taking advantage of the said fact, suppressing the said fact, got filed the present suit at the instance of the original owners, Samatham Hema Chandra Mouleswara Satyanarayana Rao and Samatham Maheswara Rao. When these Defendants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property as tenants, the Plaintiff has no right to file the present suit for Injunction and obtain ex parte orders of Injunction. These Defendants submit that the suit for Injunction is not at all maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.225 of 2009 for amendment, the defendants prayed the Court to add paragraph 10A, which reads as under. “(10-A) Originally Item No.1 of the Plaint Schedule Property belongs to Ayyagari Yugendhar Sarma and Item No.2 of the Schedule Property belongs to Samatham Maheswara Rao. So far as Item No.1 is concerned, originally it was taken on oral lease by the paternal grand father of the 1st Defendant about more than 70 years ago. Subsequently the father of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant continued as tenants. In the year 1970, Ayyagari Yugandhara Sarma and Telagamsetti Surya Rao, who is the father of the 1st Defendant have together executed a Kowl Katha dated 24th April 1970 in respect of Item No.1 of the Plaint Schedule Property. As per the Kowl Kath, it is clear that the makthas has to be paid as per the sharing system. So far as Item No.2 is concerned, the lease is an oral lease.” Else, the 2nd Petitioner and myself will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Considering the nature of amendment, the Court below came to the conclusion that defendants are making out new case by introducing amendment and that such an amendment cannot be permitted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any error in the said order. I.A.No.397 of 2009 to receive Kowlu Kathu and sale deeds is filed consequently. As the plea of Kowlu Kathu was not allowed by amendment, the Court below allowed I.A.No.397 of 2009 partly permitting filing of registration extracts of sale deeds. As the order in I.A.No.397 of 2009 does not suffer from such an error, this Court further observes that even if these petitions are allowed, the same would not give any finality to the lease between the parties nor the error now pointed out is incapable of being corrected by appellate authority at a later point of time. The civil revision petitions are misconceived and are accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) January 29, 2010. YS [1] (2009) 5 SCC 713 [2] (2005) 7 SCC 653