Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Vempati Rama Kotamma – Petitioner
Versus
Oruganti Jayaprakash Reddy – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.2073 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022
CIVIL PROCEDURE - ORDER VI RULE 17 - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - POST-TRIAL AMENDMENT - LIMITATION - REJECTION OF AMENDMENT - JUSTIFICATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - FACTORS TO CONSIDER - PREJUDICE TO OPPOSITE PARTY - CHANGE OF NATURE OF SUIT - DELAY IN FILING AMENDMENT APPLICATION - LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction to protect her possession of a property. Defendants contested the suit, claiming title and possession over the property. After the completion of evidence and during the arguments stage, the plaintiff filed an application to amend the plaint, seeking to introduce new facts and claims, including a declaration of title and possession. The trial court dismissed the amendment application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation and would cause prejudice to the defendants. The court noted that the plaintiff had not exercised due diligence in raising the new claims earlier, as she had ample opportunity to do so during the trial. The court also found that the amendment would change the nature of the suit and introduce a new cause of action.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment application was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff had exercised due diligence in raising the new claims? 4. Whether the amendment would change the nature of the suit and introduce a new cause of action?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendment application was barred by limitation because the plaintiff had not filed it within the prescribed time limit. 2. The court found that the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants because it would introduce new claims and allegations that the defendants would have to defend against, potentially leading to a longer and more complex trial. 3. The court held that the plaintiff had not exercised due diligence in raising the new claims because she had ample opportunity to do so during the trial, but failed to do so until the arguments stage. 4. The court found that the amendment would change the nature of the suit from an injunction suit to a suit for declaration of title and possession, which would introduce a new cause of action.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's revision petition, upholding the trial court's order that dismissed the amendment application.
ORDER :
Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 20.09.2022 in I.A.No.1205 of 2022 in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macherla.
2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.1 of 2014 against the defendants for perpetual injunction.
3. In the plaint, it was contended interalia that plaint schedule property, mud terraced structure bearing Door No.1-112 was constructed about 50 years back by the mother of plaintiff by name Telluri Lingamma and after her death, the schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff; that during the lifetime of Lingamma, she leased out the plaint schedule property to the father of defendants on a rent of Rs.160/- per year; that Lingamma died on 10.11.1994; that in the year 2004, father of defendants vacated the schedule property as it is in dilapidated condition; that plaintiff has been residing in Koppunuru village and taking advantage of it, defendants, who are boundary owners on Northern side of the schedule property hatched a plan to occupy the schedule property; that on 26.12.2013 when the plaintiff was at the plaint schedule property, defendants came there and tried to occupy the schedule property and the same was resisted; that the defendants are proclaiming in the village that they are going to occupy the plaint schedule property and hence, the suit was filed for the relief stated supra.
4. Defendants filed written statement and are contesting the suit. Defendants denied title of plaintiff.
5. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.1205 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint for declaration of title and possession.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of said petition, it was contended interalia that Thelluri Kotamma, who is second wife of Thelluri Bhaskara Reddy, father of petitioner did not get her share in the schedule property and she illegally executed sale deed in favour of Iruvanti Satyanarayana and thus, the sale deed executed by Thelluri Kotamma in favour of Iruvanti Satyanarayana is invalid document; thus the contentions of defendants are based upon void document and are baseless; that under these circumstances, plaintiff intended to amend the plaint seeking declaration of title.
7. Respondents filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended interalia that petition is filed belatedly to drag the suit proceedings; that defendants filed written statement long back and the evidence of plaintiff and her daughter proved lawful possession and enjoyment of father and mother of defendants over the schedule property; that proposed amendment is introduced to fill up lacunas and the petitioner/plaintiff is not allowed to introduce new facts; that the affidavit is silent regarding the plaintiff’s dispossession; that the plaintiff was cross examined on 01.04.2019 and further cross examined on 29.04.2019; that daughter of plaintiff was cross examined as P.W.2 on 10.06.2019; that plaintiff as P.W.1 and her daughter as P.W.2 pleaded that they are not in possession and enjoyment of schedule property in their chief examination, however in the cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that “For the past 30 years, the family of the defendants are residing in the suit schedule property. It is true by the date of filing of suit, the mother of defendants constructed a house with two rooms in the schedule property. It is true the wife of second defendant is running a fair price shop in the said house. I filed the suit for recovery of possession from the defendants”; that proposed amendment is barred by limitation; that on 22.03.2022 the petitioner/plaintiff was recalled and marked Exs.A-4 to A-7 and she was cross examined; that P.W.2 was also recalled for further evidence and she was cross examined; that plaintiff reported no further evidence and the suit was posted for arguments and the Court heard arguments on either side, at that point of time, this petition is filed and prayed the
Post-trial amendments to pleadings are generally not favored by courts and may be rejected if they are barred by limitation, would cause prejudice to the opposite party, change the nature of the suit....
The Court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for just decision of the case and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
The amendment of pleadings is permitted to clarify claims and ensure proper adjudication of disputes, especially when no trial has commenced, and does not change the suit's nature.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of proceedings to determine the real controversy.
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
