Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.
Aditya Motors - Appellant
Versus
Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Ors. - Respondents
CRP Nos. 4155, 4280, 4289, 4302 and 4305 of 2018
Decided On : 12-06-2019
Civil Procedure Code – Order VI – Rule 17 – Plaintiffs instituted suit against 1st defendant and three others for eviction from plaint schedule premises and recovery of vacant possession of same, recovery of money towards use & occupation and other reliefs, 1st defendant is also resisting suit, During pendency of suit, plaintiff filed above said interlocutory applications in suit and also in pending interlocutory applications in suit –Held, Substitution of cause of action by way of amendment sought, having regard to facts of case, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad found that wholesale replacement of cause of action which brings about totally different and altogether new situation is impermissible, Court also held that rights of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff to seek amendment of original pleadings being restricted right, proposed amendments if permitted would change nature of pleadings and cause prejudice to defence of defendants which is already taken and, therefore, amendments sought are liable for rejection –Decisions above referred being distinguishable on facts are not helpful to revision petitioner-1st defendant and do not advance his case in light of legal position, which is applicable and adverted to supra – Revision petitions are dismissed. (Para 220, 221, 224)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs instituted suit against 1st defendant and three others for eviction from plaint schedule premises and recovery of vacant possession of same, recovery of money towards use & occupation and other reliefs, 1st defendant is also resisting suit, During pendency of suit, plaintiff filed above said interlocutory applications in suit and also in pending interlocutory applications in suit.
Findings of the court:
Substitution of cause of action by way of amendment sought, having regard to facts of case, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad found that wholesale replacement of cause of action which brings about totally different and altogether new situation is impermissible, Court also held that rights of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff to seek amendment of original pleadings being restricted right, proposed amendments if permitted would change nature of pleadings and cause prejudice to defence of defendants which is already taken and, therefore, amendments sought are liable for rejection –Decisions above referred being distinguishable on facts are not helpful to revision petitioner-1st defendant and do not advance his case in light of legal position, which is applicable and adverted to supra.
Result: Revision petitions are dismissed
ORDER :
M. Seetharama Murti, J.
1. These civil revision petitions arise out of five orders separately made, on 28.3.2018, by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur in IA Nos. 237, 240, 241, 239 and 238 of 2018 in OS No. 118 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of pleadings. By the said orders, all the said petitions are allowed. In view of the commonality and identity of subject-matter of all the interlocutory applications, which are allowed, these CRPs are being disposed of by this common order.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri S.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-unsuccessful 1st respondent-1st defendant ['1st defendant', for brevity] and of Smt. V. Dyumani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2-plaintiffs ['plaintiffs', for brevity]. I have perused the material record.
3. To begin with, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs instituted the suit against the 1st defendant and three others for eviction from the plaint schedule premises and recovery of vacant possession of the same, recovery of money towards use & occupation and other reliefs. The 1st defendant is also resisting the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed the above said interlocutory applications in the suit and also in the pending interlocutory applications in the suit.
4. The amendments sought insofar as the plaint read as under:
(b) In the cause title and in the entire suit i.e., OS No. 118/2012 in the particulars of the 1st defendant has to be removed and need to be substituted the following where ever it is required:
"Pilla Durga Prasad, S/o. Varahala Rao, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Rep., of Aditya Motors D. No. 5-7/8-56/76A, Rajiv Sarma Nagar, Behind Sowmya Theatre and Sai Ram Theatre, Vijayawada Urban 520001, AP, Aadhar No. 8815 9573 6927."
(c) The words "Associate Auto Service (P) Ltd." has to be removed where ever appeared in the entire suit i.e., in OS No. 118/2012 and need to be substituted as:
"M/s. Associated Auto Service Pvt. Ltd."
4A. The amendments sought in the various Interlocutory Applications viz., 240, 241, 239 and 238 of 2018 pending in the suit respectively read as under:
IA No. 240 of 2018
(a) In the cause title, the particulars of the 1st respondent/defendant in affidavit and petition and in schedule of the petition of IA No. 3076/2016 in OS No. 118/2012 has to be removed and need to be substituted the following:
"Pilla Durga Prasad, S/o. Varahala Rao, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Rep., of Aditya Motors D.No. 5-7/8-56/76A, Rajiv Sarma Nagar, Behind Sowmya Theatre and Sai Ram Theatre, Vijayawada Urban 520001, AP, Aadhar No. 8815 9573 6927."
(b) The words "Associate Auto Service (?) Ltd." has to be removed where ever appeared in IA No. 3076 of 2016 in OS No. 118/2012 and need to be substituted as:
"M/s. Associated Auto Service Pvt. Ltd."
IA No. 241 of 2018
(a) In the cause title and in the entire affidavit and petition i.e., IA No. 1826/ 2017 in OS No. 118/2012 in the particulars of the 1st defendant has to be removed and need to be substituted the following where ever it is required:
"Pilla Durga Prasad, S/o. Varahala Rao, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, Rep., of Aditya Motors D.No. 5-7/8-56/76A, Rajiv Sarma Nagar, Behind Sowmya Theatre and Sai Ram Theatre, Vijayawada Urban 520001, AP, Aadhar No. 8815 9573 6927."
(b) The words "Associate Auto Service (P) Ltd." has to be removed where ever appeared in the entire affidavit and petition i.e., IA No. 1826/2017 in OS No. 118/2012 and need to be substituted as:
"M/s. Associated Auto Service Pvt. Ltd."
IA No. 239 of 2018
(a) In the cause title, the particulars of the
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
