THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3362 OF 2010 DATED 3RD DECEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Laxminandan …Petitioner And S.Krishnam Raju and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3362 OF 2010 O R D E R The plaintiﬀ in O.S.No.102 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, ﬁled an application therein in I.A.No.158 of 2009 seeking to amend his plaint. By order dated 22.07.2009, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff. Interim stay of further proceedings in the suit was granted by this Court on 06.08.2010. Despite service of notice, the defendants did not choose to put in their appearance before this Court. The matter is accordingly decided ex parte. Parties shall be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The suit was ﬁled by the plaintiﬀ to adjudge the cancellation deed bearing document No.3709/05 dated 27.05.2005 as null and void; to direct the Sub-Registrar, Gajwel, Medak District, to cancel the said cancellation deed and to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property by way of perpetual injunction. It was the case of the plaintiﬀ that the ﬁrst defendant, representing M/s.Larswin Engineering Limited as its Managing Director, entered into an agreement of sale with him in respect of the suit schedule property; that the Company executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of one Mr.Mohanlal and that the said GPA holder executed the registered sale deed bearing document No.503/89 dated 07.02.1989 in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the ﬁrst defendant is said to have individually executed the cancellation deed bearing document No.3709/05 dated 25.05.2005 cancelling the sale eﬀected under the sale deed bearing document No.503/89 dated 07.02.1989. This was the cause of action for filing of the suit. By way of the subject application in I.A.No.158 of 2009, the plaintiﬀ sought to add an additional prayer for being declared as the owner of the suit schedule property and for rectiﬁcation of the entries in the revenue records by deleting the name of the second defendant. As per the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the said application, the plaintiﬀ claimed that it was only upon the ﬁling of the written statements in the suit that he came to know that the second defendant was setting up title to the suit schedule property under a simple sale deed dated 12.05.1988 which was thereafter validated by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Toopran, under proceedings dated 02.11.2005. It was owing to this development that the plaintiff sought amendment of his prayer in the suit. The same was contested by the defendants, by way of a counter, on the ground that the suit was ﬁled on 11.11.2005 and the plaintiﬀ was seeking amendment therein after a lapse of more than 3½ years and after commencement of the trial. They further alleged that the amendment sought would change the nature and character of the suit and that the said amendment was not essential for the disposal of the suit. The trial Court, upon consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the plaintiﬀ was not entitled to seek amendment after the commencement of the trial in view of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure and as the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit. It is however to be noticed that the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the I.A. discloses that the plaintiﬀ had only ﬁled his chief aﬃdavit by the date of seeking amendment and was yet to be cross-examined. The bar under the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC not being absolute, it was within the discretion of the trial Court to allow the same if it found that in spite of due diligence, the plaintiﬀ could not have sought amendment before commencement of the trial. It was the case of the plaintiﬀ that only upon seeing the written statement of the defendants he came to know that the second defendant was setting up title on the basis of an unregistered sale deed. It is owing to this development that the plaintiﬀ sought the comprehensive relief of declaration of his title. The suit, as originally framed, prayed for the cancellation of the cancellation deed whereby the sale deed under which the plaintiﬀ claimed title to the suit schedule property was cancelled and for a permanent injunction. The trial Court was therefore not correct in concluding that the very nature and character of the suit would be changed by allowing the plaintiﬀ to seek declaration of title. The issue of the plaintiﬀ’s title was already before the Court in the suit even as originally framed, albeit indirectly. The trial Court therefore erred in disallowing the plaintiﬀ’s application for amendment. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed permitting the amendment of the plaint as sought by the plaintiff. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 3RD DECEMBER, 2011. PGS/VGSR