IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND [2ND] DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4063 of 2009 Between: Gudela Vishnu Murthy … Petitioner And: Gudela Narayanappadu … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4063 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.07.2009 in IA No.611 of 2009 in OS No.526 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appeared for the respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property i.e., Ac.1.50 cents in Sy.No.77/5 situate in Raghumanda village. The defendant is none else than the paternal uncle of the plaintiff. In the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff is the son of late Chandri Naidu and that the plaintiff inherited the plaint schedule property from his father, who is the only son and Class I legal heir to his father and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He complains that since one week prior to filing of the suit defendant is proclaiming that he would trespass into the plaint schedule property and occupy the same. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit for permanent injunction. Subsequently, he filed IA No.611 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction to the effect that the father of the plaintiff was very much alive and that the plaintiff got the property in a family arrangement and oral partition between himself, his father and brother in the presence of village elders. The defendant filed counter opposing the application on the ground that the proposed amendment if allowed, it materially alters the nature of the suit and also cause of action. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said application observing that if the petition is allowed, there will be change of cause of action. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that while filing the suit by out of order, a mistake has crept in due to inadvertence while instructing to the learned counsel who drafted the plaint and therefore, the plaintiff was described as son of ‘late Chandri Naidu’, though his father is alive and the said mistake was carried into the body of the plaint also, wherein, it is stated that the plaintiff inherited the suit property from his father being his only son and sole legal heir, though in fact he got the same by virtue of family arrangement and partition between himself, his father and brother. 5. It is to be noted that the suit is filed for bare injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. In the plaint, plaintiff has stated that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. But, however, the source of his title to the property is described as by way of succession to his father’s estate. Since the plaintiff’s father is stated to be alive, the question of plaintiff succeeding to the estate of his father does not arise. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that describing the plaintiff as son of late Chandri Naidu was itself a drafting mistake, which occurred while drafting the plaint and the plaintiff in fact got the property under family arrangement between himself, his father and brother and hence, whatever be the source of title, the plea of plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule land and that he is in possession of the same remains intact even after amendment. The cause of action for the suit arose from the date of alleged threat of the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment and the plea in the plaint regarding the said cause of action also remains intact in spite of the amendment. Thus neither the nature of the suit, which is filed for injunction based on the alleged title and possession and the cause of action do not suffer any change even if the plaint is permitted to be amended. The only change that will be occurring is regarding the plea of the plaintiff about source of his title to the property. It is always open to the defendant to file additional written statement regarding the same and contest the pleas raised by the plaintiff by way of amendment. But when once the proposed amendment is found not to alter the nature of the suit or relief claimed in the suit or even the cause of action for the suit, the trial Court ought to have exercised its discretionary authority under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in favour of the plaintiff, permitting him to amend the plaint, especially when according to him, the mistake occurred while drafting the plaint. 7. It is an established proposition of law that the power to permit the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has to be exercised liberally and it can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings so long as it does not bring about drastic change in the nature and character of the suit and does not cause any serious prejudice to the other side. If the proposed amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, as the amendment is sought at the early stage of the proceedings. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the application in IA No.611 of 2009 is held not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the said petition stands allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as proposed. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 02.12.2009 bss