Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
Kovvuri Tanuja and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Kovvuri Veera Nagendra Reddy and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. No. 2040 of 2019
Decided On : 11-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:S. Subba Reddy, Advocate
When a defendant is added to a suit, the plaint must be amended in such a manner as may be necessary, unless the Court directs otherwise. The nature and extent of the amendment is not restricted by Order I Rule 10(4) CPC.
Headnote:
IMPLEADMENT OF DEFENDANT - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - HINDU JOINT FAMILY - BURDEN OF PROOF - ORDER I RULE 10(4) CPC - ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC - CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE RULE 28 - BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) v. PURUSHOTTAM and OTHERS (2020) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 387 - REJECTION OF AMENDMENT - JUSTIFICATION - SCOPE OF AMENDMENT - PREJUDICE TO RESPONDENTS - NATURE OF DISPUTE - LARGER QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION - SETTING ASIDE OF IMPUGNED ORDER - ALLOWANCE OF AMENDMENT - NO COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs sought partition and division of plaint schedule properties into nine equal shares, allotment of two such shares to them, and other reliefs. The suit was initially disposed of granting a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred against it. The 7th respondent had instituted a suit in relation to a part of the plaint schedule properties. Both appeals were heard together and remanded to the trial Court for impleading necessary parties, receiving written statements, and settling additional issues. The plaintiffs filed an application to implead the 7th respondent as a defendant and amend the plaint accordingly. The trial Court allowed the application in part, permitting the addition of the 7th respondent as a defendant but rejecting the proposed amendments in paragraphs 9B and 9D of the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court erred in rejecting a part of the proposed amendments to the plaint. The proposed amendments were necessary for the petitioners to substantiate their claim that the plaint schedule properties were joint family properties and that they were entitled to a share therein. The respondents would not stand to any prejudice if the amendments were allowed, as they had the right to question them by way of further pleadings and in the course of trial. The larger questions for consideration in the dispute between the parties warranted allowing the amendments.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting a part of the proposed amendments to the plaint? 2. Whether the proposed amendments were necessary for the petitioners to substantiate their claim? 3. Whether the respondents would stand to any prejudice if the amendments were allowed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The nature of relief sought in the petition for impleading the 7th respondent and consequential amendments should be considered to resolve the present question. 2. The main objection for the contesting respondents is with reference to merits of the proposed amendment. However, in the counter they came up with specific caveat that such proposition of law, having regard to the nature of the proposed amendment, need not be relied on and necessarily the character and nature of these amendments as well as their purpose, possibly affecting their defence in the suit should be considered. 3. In terms of Order I Rule 10(4), in case of addition of a defendant, the plaint has to be amended. It is desirable to extract the same hereunder for facility. 4. A careful reading of this provision leaves no manner of doubt that plaint is required to be amended when a defendant is added in such a manner as may be necessary. However, it is subject to directions of the Court and if the Court directs otherwise, as can be culled out from the text of this provision, amendment of the plaint can be excluded. It does not in any manner restrict the nature and extent of the amendment. 5. The proposed amendments were necessary for the petitioners to substantiate their claim that the plaint schedule properties were joint family properties and that they were entitled to a share therein. 6. The respondents would not stand to any prejudice if the amendments were allowed, as they had the right to question them by way of further pleadings and in the course of trial. 7. The larger questions for consideration in the dispute between the parties warranted allowing the amendments.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The order of the trial Court rejecting a part of the amendment of the plaint was set aside. The petitioners were entitled to amend the plaint as sought in the application. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
M. Venkata Ramana, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against orders of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet, in I.A. No. 239 of 2018 in O.S. No. 71 of 2005 dated 28.06.2019.
2. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. Respondents 1 to 6 are the defendants and whereas the 7th respondent is directed to be added as a defendant to the suit by the impugned order.
3. The petitioners instituted the suit for partition and for division of the plaint schedule properties into nine equal shares, to allot them two such shares and for some other reliefs.
4. The plaintiffs claimed themselves as the daughters of the 1st respondent born to Smt. Kovvuri Seetha Venkata Nagalakshmi. The fourth respondent was the wife of the 2nd respondent. Both of them are no more. Respondents 1 and 3 are their sons. Respondents 6 and 7 are their daughters. The 5th respondent is the brother of 4th respondent. The plaint schedule properties are claimed being joint family properties by the petitioners and as coparceners entitled for share therein.
5. The suit was initially disposed of granting a preliminary decree in favour of the petitioners by the decree and judgment dated 30.01.2010. An appeal was preferred against it in A.S. No. 70 of 2011. The 7th respondent had instituted a suit in relation to a part of the plaint schedule properties concerned to O.S. No. 71 of 2005 in O.S. No. 16 of 2012 to which the petitioners and other respondents were parties. The 6th respondent though remained ex parte in O.S. No. 71 of 2005 preferred A.S. No. 16 of 2015. Both these appeals, viz., A.S. No. 70 of 2011 and A.S. No. 16 of 2015 were heard together by the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, at Amalapuram and was disposed of by a common decree and judgment dated 27.04.2018 remanding the matter particularly with reference to O.S. No. 71 of 2005 to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet. The directions in this judgment are that the trial Court should receive the written statement of the sixth defendant (6th respondent herein), to implead necessary parties, that the parties to adduce additional evidence basing on the documents produced at the appellate stage and settle necessary additional issues among other things.
6. Pursuant to such directions, in as much as the 7th respondent is found to be a necessary party to the suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 239 of 2018 in the suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC. Consequential amendment is sought thereupon setting out as follows:
"A. By adding word "since died" against the names of the defendants 2 and 4 in the short cause title and long cause title of the plaint.
B. By adding the name of the 7th respondent as 7th defendant after the name of 6th defendant in the short cause title and long cause title of the plaint.
C. By adding the following paragraph as paragraph 9B, 9C and 9D after paragraph 9A of the plaint:
1) 'Para 9B: It is submitted that the 6th defendant Medapati Padmavathi and the 7th defendant Dwarampudi Nagamani are the only daughters of the defendants 2 and 4 and they are the sisters of defendants 1 and 3. The defendants 6 and 7 disclaimed their shares in the plaint schedule properties. But in view of the directions in the decree and judgment dated 27.04.2018 the District Court in A.S. Nos. 70/2011 and A.S. No. 16/2015 preferred by defendants 1 and 6 against the earlier decree and Judgment dated 30.01.2010 passed by this Court, the 7th defendant is added as party to the suit. After passing of the decree dated 30.01.2010 by the Court, the 7th defendant is added as party in the final decree proceedings I.A. Nos. 90, 91 of 2011. While so, the 7th defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 16 of 2012 before this Court against the plaintiffs and the other defendants for declaration of her alleged title and for injunction in respect of an extent of Ac. 0.67 ½ cut of Ac. 1.35 cents in R.S. Nos. 10/7 and 14/4 which is part of items 1 and 2
