Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Surabhi Baburao - Appellant
Versus
Vullingala Suryanarayana - Respondent
Decided On : 06-18-93
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - JURISDICTION - OUSTER OF - LIMITATION - DECLARATION OF TITLE - ADVERSE POSSESSION - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - TERMS - ORDER 6, RULE 17 C. P. C. - ORDER 7, RULE 10 C. P. C. - ARTICLE 58 AND 65 OF THE LIMITATION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of rents against the defendants, who denied the plaintiff's title and claimed no landlord-tenant relationship. Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include a declaration of title to the property, but the lower court rejected the amendment on grounds of jurisdiction, change of cause of action, and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lower court erred in rejecting the amendment. It found that the amendment did not oust the court's jurisdiction, as the court could return the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 C. P. C. if necessary. The court also found that the proposed amendment was not barred by limitation, as the applicable limitation period was 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, not 3 years under Article 58.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of the plaint would oust the court's jurisdiction? 2. Whether the proposed amendment was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendment of the plaint would not oust the court's jurisdiction, as the court could return the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 C. P. C. if necessary. 2. The court held that the proposed amendment was not barred by limitation, as the applicable limitation period was 12 years under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, not 3 years under Article 58.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the lower court's order, and directed the petitioner to pay costs to the respondents.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 304 of 1984 on the file of the Additional District munsif s Court, Anakapaili, is the petitioner who is challenging an order refusing amendment to the plaint.
( 2 ) THE petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of rents against the respondents who are his tenants. The respondents took the stand that the petitioner has no title and that there is no reiationship of tenant and landlord between them. In view of the denial of title by the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to file an application for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of declaration of title to the plaint schedule property. The respondents opposed the said application under three counts. Firstly, inasmuch as the proposed amendment ousts the jurisdiction of the Court; secondly, it changes the form and cause of action of the suit; and thirdly, the relief of declaration of title has been barred by time and as such, the amendment cannot be permitted.
( 3 ) THE lower Court has found that there is no change in the form of the suit or cause of action. But, however, the objection regarding the question of limitation was upheld, holding that the suit would be barred by time in respect of the proposed relief of declaration. It also found that by allowing the proposed amendment, the Court would lose the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, the application for amendment was rejected. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed the above revision petition.
( 4 ) SRI. E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the grounds relied upon by the lower Court are unsustainable.
( 5 ) SRI K. V. Subrahamanya Narusu, however, tried to sustain the order.
( 6 ) THE suit was originally filed for recovery of rents from the year 1981 on the ground that the respondents are lessees in respect of agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 3-61 cents. The learned Counsel for respondents, submits that by adding the relief of declaration of title, the jurisdiction of the Court would be ousted and, therefore, such an amendment cannot be permitted.
( 7 ) ORDER 6, Rule 17 C. P. C. runs as follows:-"17. THE Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. "it is necessary to notice the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 C. P. C. at this juncture. The same is extracted hereunder :-"10. (1) (Subject to the provisions of the Rule 10 A, the plaint shall) at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. "a combined reading of both the provisions make it abundantly clear to one s mind that Order 6, Rule 17 C. P. C. makes it obligatory on the Court to consider an application for amendment in any pending suit. On a consideration of the said application, if it exceeds the jurisdiction of the said Court, it has to invoke the provisions of Rule 10 to Order 7 C. P. C. which gain makes it obligatory on the Court to return the plaint for being presented to a proper Court.
( 8 ) A controversy, whether in such circumstances, the Court should return the plaint along with the application for amendment, or consider the application for amendment and then only return the plaint if it exceeds the jurisdiction of that Court in view of allowing the amendment, was set at naught by a Division bench of this Court in C. Janardhan Rao vs. C. Ratnamala which overruled the decisions reported in Padmanabha Talkies vs. Gowthami Pictures and Kaka vs. Kanhayya Lala and by authoritatively laying down the dicta that the jurisdiction of the Court in which the plaint was originally filed, is not taken away or ousted to consider an amendment to the plaint which eventually ousts the jurisdiction of that Court. If on a consideration
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
