IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4853 OF 2008 Between: Lenka Kuppu Swamy and others …Petitioners/Plaintiffs A n d The Gram Panchayat, Gajapathinagaram Rep. By its Secretary, Gajapathinagaram, Vizianagaram District and others. … Respondents/Defendants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4853 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-08-2007 in I.A.No.419 of 2005 in O.S.No.61 of 2000, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram, wherein the said application filed by the revision petitioners herein, the plaintiffs, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State. None appeared for Respondent No.9, though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners herein filed the suit O.S.No.61 of 2000 originally seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with physical possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land of Ac.0-38 cents. According to the plaintiffs, they are the cultivating tenants of the plaint schedule land having taken the same on lease from the 9th respondent herein, Managing Trustee, Vysya Seva Sadanam, Kakinada, to which trust the land belonged. Initially, the trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of petitioners in I.A.No.187 of 2000. The construction of water tank, which was commenced by the official respondents in the schedule land was thereafter stopped. The respondents filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2002 before the District Court against the order of temporary injunction and the said appeal was allowed and interim injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated. The plaintiffs preferred a revision before this Court and the same was dismissed. The petitioners contend that taking advantage of the fact that the interim injunction was vacated, the respondents have resumed the construction of water tank in the schedule land and completed the same. Thereafter, the respondents have filed an application for impleadment of Respondent No.9, the original owner of the schedule land in I.A.No.418 of 2005 and the said petition was also allowed and Respondent No.9 was impleaded as defendant No.9. The petitioners filed the present application in I.A.No.419 of 2005 seeking amendment of the plaint and claimed the reliefs of declaration of rights in the plaint schedule land as tenants in succession under the trust of Defendant No.9 and also seeking a direction to defendants 1 to 8 to remove the unauthorized construction in the plaint schedule land and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the proposed amendment, if allowed, would alter the nature of the suit. 4. It is to be noted that the necessity for amendment of the plaint arose only on account of the subsequent event of respondents 1 to 8 constructing the water tank in the schedule land, taking advantage of the fact that the interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs was vacated. The plaintiffs claim to be the cultivating tenants of the schedule land having taken on lease from the original owner- respondent No.9. The 9th respondent though served with a notice has not chosen to contest the petition. Respondents 1 to 8 have taken up the construction work in the schedule land on the premise that the land was held over in view of the dispute between the landlord and tenant. It is not the case of respondents 1 to 8 that the schedule land belonged to the Government or the panchayat or that the same was vested in either of them. Admittedly, the land belonged to a trust viz., 9th respondent and did not belong to the Government or the panchayat. It is not known how respondents 1 to 8 could take up the work of construction of a water tank in the schedule land, simply because the disputes between the landlord and tenant were pending. It is also not disputed that the petitioners, as cultivating tenants, have applied for grant of ryotwari pattas and the said matter is pending before the settlement authorities. Even assuming that the land is held over by the Government, the possession and enjoyment of the same is stated to be with the tenants pending enquiry under the Estates Abolition Act. It is also not disputed that the Revenue Divisional Officer previously acquired an extent of Ac.0-48 cents situate to the west of the suit land forming part of the same survey numbers and compensation was also awarded to the landlord and tenants and in view of the disputes between the landlord and tenants, the amount was deposited in Civil Court. The Government, however, choose to construct the said tank in the suit land instead of the land acquired by them situate to the west of the suit land. As respondents 1 to 8 have earlier taken up the construction of water tank in the suit land and also completed the same after the interim injunction was vacated, necessity arose for the plaintiffs to seek declaration of their rights in the suit land and also for recovery of vacant possession thereof after removal of the water tank which according to them was unauthorisedly constructed in the suit land. In view of the subsequent event and in order to facilitate complete adjudication of the whole dispute between the parties in a comprehensive manner and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is only just and proper that the proposed amendment of the plaint be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties is resolved. It is well settled that the provisions contained in order VI Rule 17 CPC are to be interpreted liberally and amendments of the plaint cannot ordinarily be rejected unless the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the defence of the defendants or the same takes away the vested right that has already accrued to the defendants. In the present case, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants by permitting the plaint to be amended in the manner proposed and, on the other hand, it would facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of the real dispute between the parties and also avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 5. Under those circumstances, it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek amendment of the plaint in the manner proposed. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the proposed amendment, if allowed, would be beyond the pecuniary jurisdictional limits of the learned Junior Civil Judge. In the event it is found that the valuation of the proposed releifs sought by the plaintiffs by way of amendment exceed the pecuniary jurisdictional limits of the trial Court, it is open to the learned Junior Civil Judge to return the plaint for presentation before the proper Court in accordance with law. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the petition I.A.No.419 of 2005 in O.S.No.61 of 2000, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajapathinagaram, is held liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as proposed. 7. In the result, civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st August, 2009 Lrkm.