HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1202 of 2011 Date : 11.07.2011 Between : Ankathi Malleshwar Rao @ Mallesham & another. …..Petitioners And Bhumala Laxmaiah & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1202 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by defendants 2 and 5 in the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. By the impugned order, the application filed by respondents 1 to 7/plaintiffs in I.A.No.430 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, is allowed. By way of amendment, respondent/ plaintiffs sought addition of paragraph 8(a) in the plaint, which reads as under : “After filing of Written Statement this plaintiffs came to know of the proceedings averred in its Para (24) and it is submitted that the said proceedings are illegal, not according to law and concocted in connivance of the Revenue Staff”. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., it is stated that in the written statement filed by the petitioners herein, proceedings initiated under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, were referred to, but they were not aware of such proceedings, as no notice was served on them and that the said proceedings in File No.F/K1/3014/95 are concocted and created. In that context, they sought to add para 8(a) by way of amendment to the plaint. The aforesaid application is contested by the petitioners herein on the ground that no valid reasons have been mentioned in the said application so as to allow the same. The Court below allowed the application filed by the respondents herein, by recording a finding that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners herein, if the said application for amendment of plaint is allowed, as they can lead evidence in the matter. In this revision, it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the respondents herein were aware of the proceedings, which were pending before the revenue authorities, as the same were anterior to filing of the suit. It is contended by the learned counsel that inspite of their contest by way of filing counter, without recording valid reasons, the impugned order is passed, allowing the amendment. It is submitted that the petitioners have also filed documentary evidence to show that the proceedings under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, were to the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiffs even before filing of the present suit. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents that the paragraph, which is sought to be added by way of amendment, is with regard to the proceedings stated to have been initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, and as much as the respondent/plaintiffs came to know about the said proceedings only after filing of the written statement, they filed the application in I.A.No.430 of 2010, seeking amendment of plaint by adding paragraph 8(a). It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the trial is not commended in the suit, and in that view of the matter, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this case, it is to be noticed that the trial has not begun in the suit in O.S.No.23 of 2009. It is true that there were some proceedings referring to the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiffs under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, wherein, they have questioned the entries, but the proposed amendment relate to proceedings stated to have been initiated under the Inams Abolotion Act. I have also perused the paragraph, which is sought to be added by way of amendment. By seeking amendment, only a paragraph is added to state that the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act are not in accordance with law and are concocted in connivance with the revenue staff. By virtue of the said amendment, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners’ case, as they can lead evidence and also elicit any information by way of cross-examination of the witnesses to be produced on behalf of respondent/plaintiffs. The Court below also assigned cogent and valid reasons to allow the application filed by the respondent/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the said order, in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th July 2011 ajr