THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.898 of 2010 Date:15th December, 2010 Between: 1. Anila Bai Mutalik ..... Petitioner/1st plaintiff AND 1. Smt.Chatramma & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.898 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 09.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.262 of 2009 in O.S.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the 1st plaintiff under 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner/1st plaintiff in O.S.No.12 of 2006 are: Anila Bai Mutalik, Panduranga Rao Mutalik, Rajshree, Jaishree and Vijayshree filed O.S.No.12 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet against Smt.Chatramma, Chandraiah Goud, Dayanand, Satyanarayan Goud, Srinivas Goud and the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Makhtal, for declaration that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule land and also seeking injunction directing the 6th defendant to pay the compensation amount to them. The plaintiffs claim the properties as legal heirs of Venkata Rao Mutalik, who is said to be adopted son of Panduranga Rao Mutalik. It is pleaded in the plaint that Panduranga Rao Mutalik died issueless on 14.11.1961. Paras.1 and 2 of the plaint read as hereunder: “1. That the original owner, possessor and patadar of lands bearing Sy.Nos.11 ext.9.08 guts. and Sy.No.12 ext. 16.06 gts situated in the village Kamath Pulmamidi of Makthal Mandal was late Panduranga Rao Muthallik S/o.Narsinga Rao R/o.Makthal. He died on 14/11/1961 leaving behind the suit property. The aforesaid lands are hereinafter referred to as the “The suit lands”. 2. That the above said Pandu Rangarao was issueless. Therefore he adopted son late Sri Venkat Rao who is none else than the husband of first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs No.2 to 5. The adoption of late Venkat Rao took place in the year 1942 after performing the ceremonies connected with adoption like giving and taking on 9th Kurdad 1352 Fasli (1942). As a result of such adoption, the aforesaid Venkat Rao came to be inducted into the family of late Panduranga Rao (adoptive father). Both the adoptive father and adoptive son Venkat Rao lived together members of Hindu Joint family. Both of them were in possession and enjoyment of suit land as joint family members till the date of death of Panduranga Rao who died on 14/11/1961 leaving behind Venkat Rao adoptive son sole heir and the suit schedule property. Consequent to his death the aforesaid late Venkat Rao inherited entire property of Panduranga Rao other lands including the suit lands. Since Venkat Rao happened to be Government employee, therefore he used to get the lands cultivated on wages. After death of Panduranga Rao the suit lands among other lands have devolved upon Venkat Rao as he was a only heir and successor.” The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement resisting the claim of the petitioner. The plaintiffs examined 5 witnesses on their behalf. Thereafter, 1st plaintiff alone filed I.A.No.262 of 2009 under Order 6, Rule 17 and Sec.151 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint. The amendment sought for is on two major aspects, one is with regard to the date of death of Panduranga Rao Mutalik and another is the son and daughter of Panduranga Rao Mutalik died issueless. The virgin pleadings on these two aspects are: Panduranga Rao Mutalik died in the year 1954-55 and that he died issueless. The defendants resisted the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the application is a belated one and no satisfactory explanation has been offered for filing the application at a belated stage, by order dated 09.02.2010. Relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “On the face of the record P.W.1 is a Retd. Principal having good academic record. Is the reason relied upon that she could notice the mistake believable? Further can’t she file present petition at the time of filing her chief affidavit? She being well educated lady ought to have awaken at the time of filing her chief affidavit. Keeping mum all this time and filing the cat petition when the suit is coming for cross- examination DW.1 is nothing but a delayed tactics.” The said order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in I.A.No.262 of 2009 in O.S.No.12 of 2006 is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st plaintiff submits that the petitioner could not give the correct date of death of Panduranga Rao Mutalik to her counsel while drafting the plaint and subsequently, she came to know of the mistake which made her to move the application seeking for amendment of the plaint with regard to date of death of Pandurangarao Mutallik. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 supported the order impugned in the revision. 6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner examined 5 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs and she moved the application under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC when the case stood posted for cross- examination of DW.1. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC after commencement of the trial. The trial Court having taken notice of the entire material brought on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to offer sufficient reasons. 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. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15th December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.898 of 2010 Date:15th December, 2010