IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5114 OF 2008 Between:- Akkiraju Venkata Surya Chintamani …Petitioner A n d Gandham Madhava Rao …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5114 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 07-11-2008 in I.A.No.526 of 2008 in O.S.No.182 of 2007, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property and for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. According to the respondent, the defendant was originally a tenant of the plaintiff’s vendor and at the time of purchase, the defendant was informed and he promised to vacate the schedule property within a month, but failed to do so. The plaintiff valued the relief of eviction under Section 40 (2) of the A.P.C.F and S.V. Act on the annual rent of Rs.4,800/- and paid court fee of Rs.396/-. The defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. Subsequently, when the matter was coming up for trial, the defendant filed the present application I.A.No.526 of 2008 seeking amendment of written statement to the effect that as the plaintiff has branded the defendant as a trespasser and also claimed damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month, the plaintiff ought to have valued the relief of recovery of possession on the value of the property, but not on the annual rental value. He, therefore, intends to plead by way of additional written statement that the learned Junior Civil Judge has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the matter has to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter opposing the application contending that even according to the defendant, he was admittedly a tenant of the schedule property and, therefore, the plaintiff rightly valued the relief of recovery of possession on the basis of the annual rental value. 4. In the plaint, it is specifically averred that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff’s vendor and at the time of purchase, the defendant promised to vacate, but subsequently did not do so. The defendant in his written statement also admitted that he was a tenant of the plaintiff’s vendor. It is further averred in the written statement that the defendant has been the absolute and bona fide tenant to his vendors and the plaintiff is a follower to the vendor and hence the question of treating the defendant as a trespasser does not arise. Thus, even according to the defendant, he was only a tenant in respect of the schedule property, but not a trespasser. The defendant appears to be having a grouse that the plaintiff’s vendor promised to sell the property to the defendant, but without his knowledge, the property was sold to the plaintiff. But the averments of the written statement would clearly go to show that though the defendant claimed to have purchased the property under an oral agreement of sale, the particulars of which though not disclosed at all, insofar as the status of his occupation of the property is concerned, he claims to be a tenant, but not a trespasser. When that is so, the plaintiff has rightly valued the relief of recovery of possession on the annual rental value i.e., Rs.4,800/-. Simply because the plaint avers that the defendant would have to be treated as a trespasser, it does not mean that the plaintiff is treating the defendant as a trespasser. Be that as it may, as rightly observed by the trial Court, it is always open to the trial Court to demand and collect the deficit court fee, if any, if ultimately it is found that such deficit court fee is payable, at any stage of the suit. The amendment of written statement as prayed for by the petitioner/ defendant is, therefore, not called for in view of the pleadings of both parties. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th February, 2011 Note: CC in two days B/o Lrkm.