PASALA MURALI KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in AS No.67/2016 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted on 08-02-2023 in C.R.P.No.46 of 2023 until further orders, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P RAMABHOOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR ARBITRATION

.

OVERNMENT PLEADER FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following order: Heard Sri P.Ramabhoopal Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri Yuva Siva Swamy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration for the respondents 1 and 2, and Sri T.Niranjan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. Assailing the order dated 05.12.2022 in I.A.No.760 of 2021 in A.S.No.67 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, the appellant in the appeal filed the above revision.

3. The appellant and the 4th respondent in the appeal filed O.S.No.154 of 2005 for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the suit, the schedule property is shown as Ac.7.50 cents in different survey numbers out of Ac.20.43 cents bounded by East: Municipal Road, South: Bhoopal Nagar, West: Land of Pasala Suryachandra Rao in the same survey number and North: Ganeedi Pasupathi Rao and others. The suit was dismissed on 28.06.2016.

Against the said judgment and decree, the 2nd plaintiff filed A.S.No.67 of

2016. Pending the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.760 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 CPC to amend the schedule and valuation of the suit and also for consequential amendments.

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that the extent of the property was incorrectly mentioned in the suit. However, the boundaries are correct. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed the Court to amend the property and the valuation. The appellate Court, by an order dated

05.12.2022, dismissed the application holding that the petitioner failed to assign proper reasons. The appellate Court held that the suit was dismissed on the merits and that no explanation was forthcoming vis-à-vis the amendment petition after a considerable length of time.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that instead of mentioning Ac.7.95 cents, the extent was mentioned as Ac.7.50 cents. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the appellant filed the application in the appeal. However, the appellate Court failed to consider the same.

The point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 05.12.2022 in I.A.No.760 of 2021 in A.S.No.67 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, suffers from any illegality?

As seen from the material available on record, the appellant and the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.154 of 2005 for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of Ac.7.50 cents in different survey numbers. The suit was dismissed on contest by judgment and decree dated

28.06.2016. Thereafter, the appeal was filed. Nearly five years after filing the appeal, the application was filed seeking amendment. No reasons were assigned in the affidavit except for stating that the revision petitioner came to know of the incorrect mention of the extent during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner failed to satisfy the due diligence test. In fact, the appellate Court assigned proper reasons and dismissed the application.

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court normally would not substitute its opinion by re-appreciating the evidence like an appellate Court. It is a settled principle of law that the boundaries prevail over an extent and survey numbers.

This Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated

05.12.2022 in I.A.No.760 of 2021 in A.S.No.67 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, warranting interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.