CRP/2055/2010 of Mantripragada Suryanarayana Murthy, Vs Byreddi Janikamma, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated23.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.162 of 2010 in O.S.No.102 of 2005 on thefile of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

The petitioners and respondent No.4 are the defendants in thesuit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for declaration of their title overthe suit schedule property. On the basis of the pleadings of the rivalparties, issues were framed as far back as 23.07.2007. It is theadmitted case that the parties went to trial and after completion thereof,the case was coming up for arguments. At this stage the petitionersfiled the above noted I.A. seeking reframing of issues by adding an issue relating to non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessaryparties. The Court below has dismissed the said application and in myview rightly on the ground that the same is belated.

At the hearing, though the learned counsel for the petitionershas strenuously contended that under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908, the Court can amend the issues at any timebefore delivery of judgment and decree, I am of the opinion that thisprovision cannot be interpreted in an unduly liberal manner so as togive leverage to the parties to file applications at a belated stage. Thepetitioners have not come out with any explanation as to the reason fornot filing the application for reframing of issues till after completion ofthe trial. The application filed when the suit was coming up forarguments after completion of trial is wholly belated and the Courtbelow is justified in dismissing the same.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision and the same isaccordingly dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the revision, C.R.P.M.P.No.2758 of2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed asinfructuous.

________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

31[st] December, 2010GHNGHN