Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Vyricharla Educational Society, Vizianagaram District and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
B. Krishna Mohan - Respondent
CRP Nos. 414, 427 and 438 of 2019
Decided On : 28-06-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI & VIII – Rule 9 & 17 – All revision petitions and property in dispute in suits being same and inasmuch as contentions are advanced on behalf of parties to these revision petitions in all these matters together – Petitions contention of plaintiff that Advocate engaged by him earlier not bring out material facts inspite of his instructions and to state that he was in possession and enjoyment of suit land under part performance of contract between him and original owner of suit land –Parties to suit, they required to be impleaded as party defendants, viz., 3rd defendant and 4th defendant claimed that amending plaint to above effect, will not cause any prejudice to defendants nor scope of suit gets changed nor he is trying to introduce any new case requesting to allow – Held, Trial Judge, exercised discretion to receive additional written statement, it cannot be found fault with, in backdrop of circumstances of these cases. Therefore, this point is also answered against defendants – In all situations it is not though parties are precluded from filing subsequent pleadings either by means of rejoinder by plaintiff in order to controvert case of defendants or in order to meet case sought to be projected by plaintiff by proposed amendments by filing additional written statement by defendants – Therefore, even on this score it cannot be stated that objections raised by defendants for receiving additional written statement as per orders in IA are proper – Liberty to file rejoinder in OS and additional written statement in another OS No – Similarly proposed parties, who shall be added in consequence of allowing IA also given liberty to file written statement if they chose to appear and contest suit – Civil revision petitions dismissed. (Paras: 36 to 40)
Facts of the case:
All revision petitions and property in dispute in suits being same and inasmuch as contentions are advanced on behalf of parties to these revision petitions in all these matters together – Petitions contention of plaintiff that Advocate engaged by him earlier not bring out material facts inspite of his instructions and to state that he was in possession and enjoyment of suit land under part performance of contract between him and original owner of suit land –Parties to suit, they required to be impleaded as party defendants, viz., 3rd defendant and 4th defendant claimed that amending plaint to above effect, will not cause any prejudice to defendants nor scope of suit gets changed nor he is trying to introduce any new case requesting to allow.
Findings of the court:
Trial Judge, exercised discretion to receive additional written statement, it cannot be found fault with, in backdrop of circumstances of these cases. Therefore, this point is also answered against defendants – In all situations it is not though parties are precluded from filing subsequent pleadings either by means of rejoinder by plaintiff in order to controvert case of defendants or in order to meet case sought to be projected by plaintiff by proposed amendments by filing additional written statement by defendants – Therefore, even on this score it cannot be stated that objections raised by defendants for receiving additional written statement as per orders in IA are proper – Liberty to file rejoinder in OS and additional written statement in another OS No – Similarly proposed parties, who shall be added in consequence of allowing IA also given liberty to file written statement if they chose to appear and contest suit.
Result: Civil revision petitions dismissed
ORDER :
M. VENKATA RAMANA, J.
1. The defendants in OS No. 2 of 2016, preferred CRP No. 414 of 2019 and CRP No. 427 of 2019 against the orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizainagaram District, dated 25.10.2018 in IA Nos. 83 and 84 of 2017 respectively.
2. The revision petitioners in CRP No. 438 of 2019 are the respondents/plaintiffs in IA No. 91 of 2017 in OS No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, Vizainagaram District. They preferred CRP No. 438 of 2019 against the orders in IA No. 91 of 2017 in OS No. 31 of 2013, dated 25.10.2018.
3. The parties to OS No. 2 of 2016 and OS No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, are one and the same. Whereas the respondent in CRP Nos. 414 and 427 of 2019 is the plaintiff in OS No. 2 of 2016 and the revision petitioners are the defendants in the above suit. The defendant in OS No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the above Court is the respondent in CRP No. 438 of 2019. The dispute in both the suits is in respect of 89 cents of land (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') in Sy. No. 174/5, 174/6 and 174/7 admeasuring Ac. 0.12, Ac. 0.14 and Ac. 0.63 cents respectively, within the specified boundaries.
4. Since the parties to all these revision petitions and property in dispute in the suits being same and inasmuch as the contentions are advanced on behalf of the parties to these revision petitions in all these matters together, they are being disposed of by this common order.
5. For convenience, the parties as arrayed in OS No. 2 of 2016 in the Trial Court shall be referred to hereinafter.
6. Initially the plaintiff in OS No. 2 of 2016 filed a suit for permanent injunction on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram in OS No. 80 of 2013. However, in view of the orders of learned Principal District Judge, Vizainagaram in Transfer OP No. 188 of 2015, dated 8.12.2015 the above suit was withdrawn from the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram and was transferred to the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, where it was renumbered as OS No. 2 of 2016. The orders of the learned Principal District Judge, Vizainagaram, in TOP No. 188 of 2015 directed that the above suit be tried alongwith OP No. 31 of 2013, which was pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram.
7. The plaintiff in OS No. 2 of 2016 instituted the suit for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants therein to restrain them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute, i.e., the suit land described above.
8. The defendants in OS No. 2 of 2016 are the plaintiffs in OS No. 31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. They instituted the above suit against the defendant i.e., the plaintiff in OS No. 2 of 2016 to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit land and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant in any manner interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, including intended construction of building in the suit land.
9. As seen from the case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, in OS No. 2 of 2016, he claimed that he had purchased the suit land under a registered agreement for sale-cum-GPA, from Sri Vedulapalli Ramakrishna, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,56,000/- on 23.6.2005 and that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land since he was put in possession of the land by the original owner Sri Vedulapalli Ramakrishna. He further claimed that the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the land claiming that they purchased the suit land under registered sale deed dated 16.4.2011 from Sri Vedulapalli Ramakrishna. On such premise and among other averments in the plaint, he sought such relief. The defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiff in OS No. 2 of 2016
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
