THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3837 of 2011 Date:09th December, 2011 Between: Myla Lakshmi Devi W/o.Late Myla Nagamuni & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND Yellaboina Nagamunemma W/o.Late Y.Ramaiah & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3837 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 30.04.2011, passed in I.A.No.1065 of 2010 in O.S.No.22 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.22 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title over the ‘EFAC’ suit schedule property and also for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to remove the constructions made in ‘EFAC’ of the suit schedule property. They pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule property has been assigned to Myla Nagamuni, who is no other than the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3. They further pleaded in the plaint that the said Nagamuni executed a registered Will, dated 31.07.1992, bequeathing the property in their favour. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial Court settled the issues and the plaintiffs commenced their evidence. After examination of PW.1 in chief in part, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1065 of 2010 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment by way of adding the word ‘possessory’ before the word ‘title’ wherever occurred in the plaint. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that they did not plead the possessory title inadvertently. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the affidavit field in support of the petition, which reads as hereunder: “It is submitted that we have filed the above suit against all the respondents for declaration of our right and title over the “ E F A C” extent of suit schedule property of plaint plan as against the 1st defendant and for mandatory injunction and for recovery of possession of the same, instead of seeking the relief as declaration of right and possessory title, by inadvertently, unless the word possessory is added before the word title in the 1st relief of the prayer portion and in the pleadings, the defect in the prayer portion would not be cured.” The respondents filed counter resisting the petition. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the petition, by order, dated 30.04.2011, on the ground that no convincing reasons have been offered by the petitioners/plaintiffs for the proposed amendment after the commencement of the trial. Hence, this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 14.09.2011. The respondents 1 to 3 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the petitioners inadvertently have not asked for declaration of possessory title and they noticed the said omission after the examination of PW.1 in chief in part. A further submission has been made that the proposed amendment does not prejudice the rights of the defendants and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3 supported the order impugned in the revision. 7. The petitioners filed the suit contending that the suit schedule property was assigned to Myla Nagamuni, who executed a registered Will, dated 31.07.1992, bequeathing the suit schedule property in their favour. When such is the assertion of the petitioners in the plaint, their contention of inadvertent omission of the word ‘possessory’ before the word ‘title’ in the plaint cannot be accepted. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the amendment petition. I do not see any illegality or irregularity to interfere in the order impugned in the revision in exercise of powers under Section 115 CPC. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3837 of 2011 Date:09th December, 2011