Point of Law:Amendment of petition – For impleading the proposed parties as defendant – Commencement of trial – Allowed

ORDER :

The civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed in I.A.No.653 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2015 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram whereby the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) for impleading proposed parties as defendant Nos.3 to 5 was dismissed.

2. The specific case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that while he was residing in USA for his job purpose and in the years 2011 to 2014 he sent some amounts to the tune of Rs.37,33,399/-to the account of defendant No.2 for purchasing immovable properties in his name. But the defendants purchased the same in the name of defendant No.1 and his wife, instead of purchasing the same in the name of the plaintiff which were subsequently transferred in the name of defendant No.2. Inspite of issuance of legal notice demanding them to return the amounts sent by the plaintiff with interest at 18% the defendants failed to pay the same. Hence, he filed he filed suit against defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are his father and brother respectively for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,08,595/-with future interest at 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization and for costs.

3. After commencement of trial the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.653 of 2016 and 654 of 2016 for impleading the proposed parties as defendant Nos.3 to 5 and to amend the plaint. The Court below dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court by way of this revision and also civil revision petition No.374 of 2017.

4. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo showing that the notices sent to the respondents returned with an endorsement ‘refused to receive’ and the same is deemed service of notice.

5. The main contention of the petitioner/plaintiff on which he seeks impleadment of the proposed parties is that he came to know that some properties which he sought to incorporate in the plaint by way of amendment were purchased by the defendants with the amounts sent by him in the years 2011 to 2014 in their names and in the name of proposed defendant No.3. His further contention is that defendant No.2 and proposed defendant No.3 in collusion with proposed defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are none other than the mother-in-law of defendant No.2 and father-in-law of proposed defendant No.3 are trying to create some documents in respect of the petition schedule properties though they have no right over the same.

6. By way of amendment petition, the petitioner sought for inserting consequential relief of ‘declaration of his title over the petition schedule properties’ in the prayer. This Court had allowed the civil revision petition filed with regard to amendment of the plaint.

7. In view of the orders passed in C.R.P.No.374 of 2017, this revision petition is also allowed setting aside the order and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed in I.A.No.653 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2015 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram. There shall be no order as to costs.

Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order dated 30.04.2021 passed in C.R.P.No.374 of 2017 to this order.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.