THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3809 of 2011 Date:17th October, 2011 Between: Ramisetty Venkata Ramana S/o.Ramana ..... Petitioner AND 1.Seelam Buttagandla Pedda Subbarayudu & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3809 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 07.02.2011, passed in I.A.No.486 of 2010 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and permitted them to make necessary amendments in the plaint. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner/6th defendant in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur, Kadapa District, are: The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and respondents 4 to 12 are the defendants 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 and whereas the petitioner herein is the 6th defendant in the said suit. The plaintiffs initially filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 5 seeking for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2. Subsequently, the 6th defendant, who is the petitioner herein, came to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit as per orders passed in I.A.No.1046 of 2006. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants 1 and 2 executed a sham and nominal document in favour of the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as 6th defendant in the suit. After the petitioner herein coming on record as 6th defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.486 of 2010 seeking amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for is relating to the sale deed said to have been executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner herein. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as 6th defendant, contested the said I.A. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application, by order dated 07.02.2011. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/6th defendant and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/6th defendant submits that the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, moved the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC at a belated stage and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have allowed their amendment application. 5. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. Initially, the petitioner herein was not a party to the suit. He came to be brought on record as party defendant as per orders passed in I.A.No.1046 of 2006. Consequent to his bringing on record as 6th defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs moved the application seeking the relief of setting aside the sale deed standing in the name of the 6th defendant by declaring that the registered sale deed executed in his favour is null and void. The relief sought for by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, for the amendment of the plaint is consequent to the petitioner bringing on record as 6th defendant in the suit. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is justified in permitting the respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit, to make necessary amendments in the plaint. 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. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th October, 2011 cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3809 of 2011 Date:17th October, 2011