Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Yadamakanti Chandra Sekhar Reddy (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Siddigari Bala Nagi Reddy – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2441 of 2019
Decided On : 31-10-2022
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - ORDER VI RULE 17 C.P.C. - ORDER XIV RULE 1(5) C.P.C. - COURT'S DISCRETION - MISTAKE OF COUNSEL - SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE ON FACTS - CHANGE OF CAUSE OF ACTION - PERIPHERAL FACTS - BALANCE OF JUSTICE - COSTS - CIVIL REVISION PETITION - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Held that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in refusing the proposed amendment to the plaint, which sought to correct a mistake made by the counsel in drafting the plaint. The mistake was inadvertent and did not change the cause of action or the substantial dispute on facts. The amendment would only serve to set right the peripheral facts and enable the court to decide the real controversy between the parties. The court allowed the amendment on condition that the revision petitioner pays costs to the respondent/defendant to compensate for the inconvenience caused.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money based on two promissory notes. The plaint was filed in the name of the deceased person and his legal representatives as plaintiffs, although the promissory notes were in the name of the plaintiff's son. The defendant denied borrowing money or executing the promissory notes. The plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint to correct the mistake, but the trial court dismissed the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in refusing the amendment. The mistake was inadvertent and did not change the cause of action or the substantial dispute on facts. The amendment would only serve to set right the peripheral facts and enable the court to decide the real controversy between the parties.
Issues: Whether the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in refusing the amendment to the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: * Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permits amendments but on terms which would balance the justice. * The purpose of allowing amendments is to help the court in determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. * The court should see that its power to grant permission to amend plaint be exercised pragmatically and its endeavour shall be to see that whether the proposed amendments would enable it to decide the real controversy in appropriate manner and whether it would serve the ends of justice. * Mere change in the name of the plaintiff and consequential change the sentences do not amount to change of cause of action as long as the basis for the suit which are promotes speak otherwise.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment to the plaint on condition that the revision petitioner pays costs to the respondent/defendant to compensate for the inconvenience caused.
ORDER :
1. The 1st plaintiff in O.S. No. 19 of 2017 filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 26.06.2019 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal in I.A. No. 778 of 2017 in O.S. No. 19 of 2017. Under the impugned order, the request for amendment of plaint was denied by the learned trial Court.
2. Respondent No. 1 in this revision is the sole defendant in the suit. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are also plaintiffs in the suit. A curious question has arisen in these proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to advert to the pleadings of both parties in the suit.
3. The plaintiffs together filed O.S. No. 19 of 2017 seeking for recovery of money along with interest and costs and the suit is laid on the basis of two promissory notes. The allegations in the plaint are that Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy has a wife Smt. Y. Prameelamma/4th plaintiff and they have one son/1st plaintiff and two daughters/2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. During his lifetime from Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 01.05.2016 and thereafter once again borrowed Rs. 1,76,000/- on 04.05.2016 and on both occasions, the defendant executed promissory notes in favour of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. On 16.07.2016 Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy died and to him the plaintiffs are the legal representatives. The defendant failed to repay the debt amount during lifetime of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy or to the plaintiffs despite demands. It is on these averments the plaint was filed.
4. The sole defendant Sri S. Bala Nagi Reddy filed his written statement denying borrowal of money and execution of promissory notes in favour of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. It is stated that land in Survey No. 54 in an extent of Ac. 14.50 cents situated in Koratamaddi Village was obtained by this defendant on lease for cultivation from Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. Because of low rainfall and insecticides and other reasons, the defendant suffered heavy loss in his agriculture. As a consequence, he could not pay the lease amount. However, to his surprise, on receiving the suit summons, he understood that Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy created suit pronotes and they are false. In fact Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy himself was in financial crisis and he incurred in various debts because of marriage of his daughters and he had sold away his properties towards discharge of his own debts. It is further stated that Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy never demanded this defendant for repayment and this defendant had no need to discharge the suit debt since he neither borrowed money nor executed the promissory notes. With such contentions, he sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. It seems that while the suit was set for trial and recording of evidence had not yet commenced, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 778 of 2017 in O.S. No. 19 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission for amendment of the plaint. Consequential amendments that are required to be carried out in the plaint in the event of permission for amendment is granted are also mentioned in the petition. Sri Y. Raghava Reddy/1st plaintiff/revision petitioner swore an affidavit in support of the petition. It is mentioned that both the pronotes mentioned in the plaint were the pronotes standing in the name of himself/1st plaintiff and they were executed by the defendant on borrowing money from him and these events took place during the lifetime of Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. His father obtained crop loan of Rs. 1,00,388/- and there was loan waiver by Government and the bank authorities directed him/revision petitioner to obtain succession certificate since Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar Reddy died. In the backdrop of above facts, the deponent gave the necessary documents to his advocate requesting him to file a petition for obtaining succession certificate for the purpose of bank and a suit for recovery of money for the pronot
The court has the discretion to allow amendments to the plaint, even if the mistake was made by the counsel, as long as the amendment does not change the cause of action or the substantial dispute on....
The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings are allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and that a liberal approach should be adopted to permit amendments to sub-serve the cause of justice ....
Amendments of pleadings are allowed only if they clarify existing issues without altering the suit's nature, and must be pursued with diligence to avoid disadvantaging the opposing party.
The court held that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if they are necessary for the proper adjudication of the real dispute between parties. Courts should not examine the merits of the propos....
Point of law: Order VI Rule 17 Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments sh....
Amendment of pleadings – Inconsistent pleas which do not completely displace plaintiff or disrupt original defense of defendant can be taken in written statement - Court should take liberal approach ....
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
