HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.653 AND 664 OF 2010 DATE:12-03-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.653 OF 2010 BETWEEN Dwarampudi Somireddy, Managing Director, Sridevi Poultries (P) Ltd., Anaparthy, East Godavari District. …Petitioner AND Sathi Satyanarayana Reddy & Others. …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.664 OF 2010 BETWEEN Sridevi Poultries (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Partner, Dwarampudi Somireddy, Anaparthy, East Godavari District. …Petitioner AND Goluguri Varalakshmi & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.653 AND 664 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions raise an identical question in separate suits and therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Plaintiff-Sridevi Poultries (P) Ltd., a partnership firm filed O.S.No.11 of 2009 contending that the suit schedule property was purchased under the name and style of Sridevi Poultries (P) Limited by a registered document, dated 7.5.1992 and sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents in C.R.P.No.664 of 2010 from interfering with the possession of it over the suit schedule property. Whereas, the Managing Director of the said partnership firm instituted O.S.No.12 of 2009 for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents in C.R.P.No.653 of 2010 claiming that he purchased the suit schedule property in the name of Sridevi Poultries (P) Limited under document, dated 7.5.1992. In the said suits, he filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and when the matters were posted for his cross-examination, he filed I.A.No.33 of 2009 and I.A.No.32 of 2009 in O.S.Nos.12 and 11 of 2009 respectively, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend the plaints by deleting the firm name i.e. Sridevi Poultries Private Limited and to retain his name only as the plaintiff. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed both the applications holding that the pleadings in the plaints show that the suit schedule property was purchased under the name and style of Sridevi Poultries Private Limited, and that the suits were filed in the year 2003, in which the defendants raised a specific contention that the petitioner-Dwarampudi Somi Reddy cannot institute suit- O.S.No.11 of 2009 in the representative capacity without taking the leave of Board of Directors of the Company, and that though the suits were filed in the year 2003 in which issues were already framed, the impugned applications are filed after 5 long years, and that the petitioner without taking any such steps to get the cause title amended filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and when the matter was posted for his cross-examination, the impugned applications are filed. Similarly, in O.S.No.12 of 2009, the plea of the plaintiff was that the property was purchased under the name and style of Sridevi Poultries Private Limited, however, in his cross-examination as P.W.1 when it was elicited that the suit was filed in the individual capacity and no resolution of authorization was filed into the Court, and further as it was elicited that Ex.A.1 was executed in the name of partnership firm represented by its Managing Director and when a specific contention has been raised by the defendants that the plaintiff- petitioner herein cannot institute the suit without taking the leave of Board of Directors of the Company and on being cross-examined on the said aspect at length, the impugned I.A. came to be filed. The proviso inserted to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prohibits allowing an application filed for amendment of pleadings after trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. When the petitioner herein failed to establish that such an amendment could not be taken out in spite of due diligence, and prima facie as it appears that the impugned applications were filed only to over come the legal impediment which was elicited through him as P.W.1 in the cross- examination. In that view of the matter, the lower Court rightly has not exercised the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The impugned orders so passed do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity to be corrected by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The revisions fail and are accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 12, 2010 Tsr.