In 2001 2002, the appellant came to know that respondent No.2 State of Andhra Pradesh, was planning to lease out the said lands for mining operation to other companypanies.
106 and 107 of Ayitham Valasa Village in favour of A.P. Mineral Development Corporation for mining purpose for twenty years.
By order dated 17.8.2004, the High Court allowed the said revision petition.
30 of 1946 on the file of the District Court at Vizianagaram before the Official Liquidator at Vizagpatnam Visakhapatnam in the matter of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and of the Vizianagaram Mining Co. Ltd. in liquidation and the Rajah Saheb and others as creditors in pursuance of the order dated 6.3.1946 passed by the High Court of Madras in O.P. No.
Against the said order, respondent No.1 approached the High Court by way of revision petition.
The suit lands were registered on 30.4.1948 under the Registered Document No.
The mining operations were carried over the said lands in the name and style as M s Ashwani Rajkumar Mining Trading Company by the father of the appellant.
In December, 2003 itself, the appellant herein moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint and also companysequential relief for possession of the suit lands and for damages trespassing into and carrying on mining operations on the suit lands and the same was allowed on 10.3.2004.
Ltd. for the unexpired period of lease, i.e. upto 1.6.2019.
The perusal of the reply numberice issued by D 2 to the plaintiff, which has been extracted by the High Court in the impugned order, clearly shows that the plaintiff was made known that the suit lands were in possession of D 2 having taken them on lease from the Government.
5.00 lacs in favour of the plaintiff for their mining operations without companysent of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.
However, after impleadment of M s S.K. Sarwagi and Company as second defendant first respondent herein after closing of the evidence and during the companyrse of argument, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint praying for possession over the plaint schedule mentioned property from the defendants and for grant of damages of Rs.
On 8.7.2002, the appellant came to know that respondent No.2 State has invited some companypanies to take the suit lands on lease against the rights and interest of the appellant.
102 Industries and Commerce Department, dated 20.2.2001 issued Orders transferring the mining lease held by A.P. Mineral Development Corporation in favour of M s Sarwagi and Co. Pvt.
1738 of 2004 whereby the High Court allowed the revision filed by respondent No.1 herein.
Though the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application for amendment on payment of companyt of Rs.
The said application was allowed by order dated 23.10.2003 and a local Commissioner was appointed.
It is further averred that the Government in O. Ms. No.
In 1960, the appellant left Vizianagaram for Jagadalpur because of his other business work.
Aggrieved by the said order, the above appeal has been filed by way of special leave.
On 3.12.2003, the Commissioner inspected the suit lands and filed its report stating that the suit lands were in possession of respondent No.1 and mining operations were carried by it.
The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are On 05.01.1948, the father of the appellant purchased the suit lands at Ayitham Valasa Village, Grividi Mandal, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh along with some other properties for Rs.9,176/ at a public auction held under the liquidation proceedings in O.P. No.
Originally, the appellant plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operation in the suit property.
On 11.7.2003, the said application was allowed by the Additional District Judge and respondent No.1 herein was added as defendant No.2 in the original suit.
Thereafter on 14.10.2003, an application was moved on behalf of respondent No.1 for appointment of a local Commissioner to numbere the physical features of the suit lands and to file his report.
300/ the High Court in a civil revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India set aside the same and dismissed the application for amendment which is the subject matter in this appeal.
We have already stated that originally the suit was filed against the sole defendant and subsequently the second defendant came on record as per the order dated 11.07.2003.
After the death of father, the appellant was carrying the mining operations.
When the trial was about to close in the said suit, on 11.6.2003, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by respondent No.1 herein to be added as defendant No.2 in the original suit on the ground that a deed has been executed in its favour by the State leasing the suit lands for mining operations.
The other relevant fact to be numbered is the plea taken in the written statement filed by D 1 wherein, it is specifically stated that the suit schedule lands are classified as poramboke lands in survey and settlement operations and that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.
Challenge in this appeal is the order dated 17.08.2004 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.
An application of ad interim injunction was also filed restraining respondent No.2 from ever leasing the suit land to strangers against the interest of the appellant over the said lands.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
With the said information in the reply numberice about the mining being carried on by D 2, the plaintiff filed the said suit without impleading him for possession and damages.
On 20.8.2002, the appellant filed Original Suit No.6 of 2002 in the Court of the Additional District Court, Vizianagaram seeking declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operation, to use and sell over the suit lands against respondent No.2 s infringement of such exclusive right of the appellant over the suit lands.
On 22.3.2002, the appellant issued a numberice under Section 80 C.P.C. to the State through his companynsel asking the State number to give the suit property on lease to any other party and number to interfere with the rights and interest of the appellant over the suit lands.
459 Industries and Commerce Department, dated 28.11.1998 leasing out an extent of 18.35 hectares of land companyered under Survey Nos.
732 of 1948 in Book I, Volume 346 at pages 147 to 151 in the office of the Registrar at Vizianagaram in favour of the father of the appellant companyveying, transferring and assigning all the rights including ownership, possession and interests of Vizianagaram Mining Co. Ltd., i.e., right to mining operations, use and sell the said lands.
25 of 1946.
In 1958, the father of the appellant expired.
