Barisetty Vijayalaxmi vs S.Sada Veeramani And 2 Others

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2013 in I.A.No.711 of 2012 in O.S.No.241 of 2011 on the file of learned II Junior Civil Judge Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the petitioner/ plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned II Junior Civil Judge Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before this Court are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.241 of 2011 against the respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3 for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing No.8-2-339/A/4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.711 of 2012 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the boundary pertaining to the suit schedule property, wherein it was alleged that due to oversight the petitioner/plaintiff has mentioned the northern boundary of the suit schedule property as “house belongs to plaintiff” but in fact, the actual boundaries on the northern boundary of the suit schedule property is “house belongs to Smt. N. Sailaja, H.No.8-2-339/A/4, BJR Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad”. In support of this contention, third party affidavit is also filed. Therefore, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed the petition seeking amendment of the northern boundary pertaining to the suit schedule property

To the above said petition, the respondent No.3/defendant No.3 i.e., Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal has filed counter denying the petition averments, wherein it was contended as follows:

a) Under the guise of site patta certificate granted in the name of the plaintiff in respect of 50 square yards in Sy.No.403 she has been illegally trying to grab the adjacent vacant government land to an extent of 180 square yards and filed the main suit with false and baseless allegations against the respondents/defendant. The amendment as sought by the petitioner is not permissible as the land at northern side of the suit land belongs to government and Smt. N. Sailaja is no way concerned to the said land and in fact the land under occupation of Smt. N. Sailaja also belongs to Government and necessary action is being taken to resume the said land from the alleged claimant.

b) At the time of filing of the suit the petitioner/plaintiff has shown the northern boundary of the suit schedule property as “house belongs to her” but his house was not existed at northern side but government land is existing. Now, the petitioner has cleverly filed the petition seeking amendment and in case if the suit is decided in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, the government land can be occupied under the guise of the court decree.

c) The petitioner/plaintiff is a land grabber and frequently trying to grab the adjacent government vacant land under the guise of patta certificate issued in respect of 50 square yards. The petitioner/plaintiff has already constructed house in the land allotted to her and enjoying the property. Apart from that she has been illegally trying to grab the adjacent vacant government land. As the petitioner failed in her attempt, she has cleverly filed the above suit for perpetual injunction with a malafide intention to knock away the said government by hook or crook in collusion with her neighbor Smt. N. Sailaja, W/o. N. Krishna, r/o. H. No.8-2-339/A/4, BJR Nagar, who is nothing to do with suit land. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.

In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3/defendant No.3, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed reply affidavit, wherein it was contended that even as per the counter averments of respondent No.3/defendant No.3 Smt. N. Sailaja, who is beneficiary of house patta site, is in possession of the land towards the northern side of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the suit schedule property is in respect of 50 square yards but not 180 square yards. it is further contended that if the amendment is permitted, it is not going to cause any prejudice to any of the defendants but it can only help the adjudication of the suit with correct boundaries.

Based on the rival contentions, the learned trial Court has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and learned counsel for the claimants/decree holder and perused the record.

The only contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that due to oversight she has mentioned the northern boundary as “house belongs to plaintiff” instead of “house belongs to Smt. N. Sailaja, H.No.8-2-339/A/4, BJR Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad” and that if amendment is permitted, no prejudice will be caused to either of the respondents. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration has contended that the under the guise of patta house site to an extent of 50 square yards granted in her favour, the petitioner/plaintiff is trying to grab vacant government land to an extent of 180 square yards and that Smt. N. Sailaja, who is alleged to be the neighbouring land owner of the petitioner/plaintiff is no way concerned with the land available to the northern side of the suit schedule property as it belongs to government. It is specific contention of the respondent No.3/defendant No.3 that the petitioner/plaintiff is a land grabber and frequently trying to grab the adjacent government land.

The main suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in respect of house site allotted to the plaintiff in sy.No.403 bearing No.8-1-339/15/16 situated at BJR Nagar slum, Film Nagar, Shaikpet with the following boundaries:

East : 10 feet wide road

South : Government Vacant Land and Naala

West : Government vacant land adjacent to D1 land

North : House belonging to plaintiff

The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff in the main suit is that when the plaintiff is proceeding to lay a foundation of a pacca residential building by removing the hut, defendant Nos.1 and 2 started interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff by trespassing into the suit land with their henchmen and unsocial elements by joining hands with defendant No.3 and his staff. However, it is pertinent to note that respondent No.3/defendant No.3 has clearly stated in the counter that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of patta house site to an extent of 50 square yards in Sy.No.403. Thus, there is no dispute that the petitioner/plaintiff was allotted patta house site to an extent of 50 square yards. As per the averments of counter filed by respondent No.3/defendant No.3 the petitioner/plaintiff has constructed house in the land allotted to her.

As seen from the impugned order, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the land is an open plot covered with debris and nala and there is a board in the schedule of property, wherein it was inscribed as “Govt. of Andhra Pradesh”. It was further observed in the impugned order that the boundaries actually mentioned in the petition schedule property is vacant land belongs to the Government. The trial Court has also observed in the impugned order that based on the boundaries mentioned in the petition schedule property, the petitioner filed petition seeking temporary injunction and the said petition was also dismissed. It appears that only on dismissal of the petition seeking temporary injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the petition seeking amendment of the boundaries to the suit schedule property. It is reported that the case is coming up for hearing after completion of trial. Thus, at this belated stage, seeking amendment of the plaint is not at all advisable, more particularly when such amendment is strongly opposed by respondent No.3. The main suit pertains to the year 2011 and the case is also coming up for arguments. It is pertinent to note that as per the e-courts proceedings, the main suit i.e., O.S.No.241 of 2011 was dismissed for default on 03.07.2017, however, the suit was restored to its original file. Even for the sake of arguments, if the amendment as prayed by the plaintiff is ordered at this juncture, it would procrastinate the proceedings and it would lead to denovo trial.

The Apex Court in catena of decisions held that while exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal and that it will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision. As seen from the grounds of revision, the petitioner/plaintiff failed to bring to the notice of the Court that there is an error apparent on the face of the record to set aside the impugned order.

Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or irregularity committed by the learned II Junior Civil Judge Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad while passing the impugned order and thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned order. Thereby, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the observations and comments made hereinabove shall not be construed as this Court expressing any opinion on the rights of the parties in both the suits. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.