Judgment:
B.V. Ranga Raju, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order of the trial Court dismissing an application filed under Order-6, Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint.
2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was the stand taken in the written statement that the suit site is gramanatham poramboke and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction that necessitated the filing of the application to amend the plaint.
3. It was stated in the counter that the petitioners who have filed the suit for mere injunction cannot be permitted to seek the relief for declaration as well. However, on reading of the plaint, it is seen that the plaintiffs have asserted that they are the absolute owners of the property and have been enjoying the property using the same as rastha. It may be so that they have not chosen to seek the relief for declaration of title; on the ground that in view of the threatened dispossession the suit for mere injunction would be sufficient as noted earlier, it is the stand that was taken in the written statement that the suit site is part of the gramanatham poramboke and that prompted the plaintiffs to come forward with the application to amend the suit for comprehensive relief.
4. The trial Court on appreciation of the rival contentions, stated that inasmuch as the petitioners/plaintiffs did not claim the said property as their exclusive property, they cannot be permitted to set up a new plea claiming the title thereto. It may be so that the plaintiffs have purchased the property mentioned as 'A J D E F G H' on 26-10-1988. So far as the allegation regarding the use of rastha to reach their land is concerned, it was averred in the plaint that they are enjoying the property and using the rastha without any objection. It is for this rastha, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for injunction and now want a declaration of title to the same as well by the proposed amendment. There is an assertion in the plaint that the plaintiffs have been using the rastha 'A H G C B' as noted in the plaint plan and the defendants with a mala fide intention are trying to occupy this site of an extent of five and half feet to cause obstruction to the plaintiffs. Thus, while asserting their right to enter the house through the rastha, the plaintiffs would not have specifically averred as to how they became entitled to the rastha. As observed supra, as it is the stand taken in the written statement that the said rastha is gramanatham poramboke, the plaintiffs thought fit that it would be safe to seek the relief of declaration as well by contending that it is their absolute property as well. Thus, in my opinion, the plaintiffs are not trying to bring out a new case or taken the defendants by surprise by introducing the amendment. The trial Court has thus committed an error in approaching the point in issue.
5. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.