Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.
VAKKALAGADDA VENKATA SIVAYYA - Petitioner
Vs.
TUMMALA SUJATHA - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.2641 of 2019
Decided On : 22-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY
For the Respondent: MARRI VENKATA RAMANA
Point of Law: Amendment of pleadings - if the amendment is permitted, the amendment which is based on events subsequent to the institution of the suit, though sought belatedly, also helps in avoiding the multiplicity of the proceedings and in setting at rest the dispute between the parties.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Civil revision petition - Amendment of Pleadings - Suit is filed for permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with plaint schedule property and for other reliefs - Whether or not plaintiff would be entitled to relief claimed and other allied questions cannot be prejudged while considering an application, which is filed for amendment of plaint - Whether proposed amendment is intended to determine real dispute between parties.
Finding of the Court:
Law is well settled that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to other side, and (b) of being necessary for purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties - If amendment as proposed is allowed, no right accrued to defendant would get defeated as said defendants are denying possession of plaintiff and are contending that they are in possession of property which was earlier in their occupation - Further, as refusal of request seeking amendment does not preclude plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit, refusal of request leads to multiplicity of litigation - In well-considered view of this Court, if amendment is permitted, amendment which is based on events subsequent to institution of suit, though sought belatedly, also helps in avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and in setting at rest dispute between parties - Therefore, for all aforesaid reasons, granting of amendment of plaint really sub-serves ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation and therefore, amendment sought for by plaintiff deserves to be allowed - Veracity of allegations made in proposed amendment of pleadings cannot be tested in petition seeking amendment of pleadings in this case - If plaintiff is permitted to make amendments, multiplicity of proceedings can also be avoided - There is no reason to interfere with order impugned - There is no irregularity or illegality in order under revision.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful petitioners/defendants is directed against the orders dated 30.07.2019 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, passed in IA.No.484 of 2019 in OS.No.223 of 2016 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for brevity) requesting to amend the plaint as noted hereafter.
2. Heard Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Mr. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.
3. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in brief, is this:
(a) The suit is filed for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. The plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from Vakkalagadda Sambasiva Rao, for a fully paid valuable consideration of Rs.2,38,000/- under a registered sale deed, dated 22.07.2014, and took possession of the property on the same day. Since then, the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights. While so, as the defendants made attempts to trespass into the plaint schedule property in November, 2016, the plaintiff filed the suit.
(b) The defendants filed written statement alleging that the plaint schedule property is the joint property of the 1st defendant and the vendor of the plaintiff and that the vendor of the plaintiff has no right to alienate the property to the plaintiff.
(c) During the pendency of the suit, the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property on 10.05.2019 and at that stage, the plaintiff and her husband prevented their illegal acts and when they tried to beat the plaintiff and her husband, they reported the matter to the police. While so, on 15.05.2019, the defendants highhandedly and illegally trespassed into the schedule property and occupied the same and started making modifications in the schedule site with the help of antisocial elements. The defendants are no way concerned with the plaint schedule property and they are only trespassers. The plaintiff has got a strong case to succeed in the suit. Due to changed circumstances, the plaintiff has been advised to seek amendment of the plaint to convert the suit from one of permanent injunction to suit for declaration and possession. The plaintiff prayed for the following proposed amendment of the plaint:
Para No.8(A):
The defendants highhandedly and illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property on 15.05.2019 and occupied the plaint schedule property without any manner of rights, title in the plaint schedule property and disputing title of plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff prayed to grant ad Decree for Declaration to declare that the plaintiff is absolute owner of plaint schedule property and for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property by due process of law within a stipulated period and to induct the plaintiff into possession of the plaint schedule property and to grant future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per year for every year till the eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property.
Para No.9:
After the word from the last two days, “and the defendants trespassed into the plaint schedule property highhandedly and illegally on 15-05-2019 without any manner of rights or title in the plaint schedule property.”
Para No.10 (A):
Suit for Declaration to declare that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property by due process of law. The value of each yard of plaint schedule property is Rs.4400/- as per the market value. The total value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.4,400/- X119 sq. yards, which comes to Rs.5,23,600/- on which 3/4th of which is Rs.3,92,700/-.
Para no.14:
After Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) +
Pa
