Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. Bhanumathi, J.
Kanupuru Mohan Reddy –Petitioner
Versus
Gangula Sudarsana – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.152 of 2021
Decided On : 21-10-2022
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR - DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED - MATERIAL BEARING ON THE SUIT RELIEF - REJECTION OF AMENDMENT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER VI RULE 17 - ORDER XXXIX RULE 2 - ORDER XLI RULE 27 - SECTION 151 CPC - REVISION PETITION - HEADNOTE : AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR - DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED - MATERIAL BEARING ON THE SUIT RELIEF - REJECTION OF AMENDMENT
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money lent to the 1st defendant, secured by an equitable mortgage over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to correct a typographical error in the date of the registered sale deed and to add a sentence stating that the 1st defendant deposited the original title deed on 13.02.2011. The 2nd defendant, who purchased the property from the 1st defendant, opposed the amendment, arguing that it would change the basic structure of the suit and prejudice his rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was not a mere typographical error, but a substantial change that would have a material bearing on the suit relief. The court noted that the 2nd defendant had purchased the property from the 1st defendant on 29.10.2012, and that the 1st defendant had informed him that the registered sale deed was misplaced. The court held that if the deposit of the title deed was made on 13.02.2011, as the plaintiff now claimed, then the 2nd defendant's rights under the registered sale deed would be subject to the mortgage. However, if the deposit was made on 09.08.2013, as originally pleaded by the plaintiff, then the mortgage would be invalid as the 1st defendant would have lost his right over the property by then.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff was a mere typographical error or a substantial change that would have a material bearing on the suit relief? 2. Whether the 2nd defendant would be prejudiced if the amendment was allowed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was not a mere typographical error, but a substantial change that would have a material bearing on the suit relief. The court noted that the 2nd defendant had purchased the property from the 1st defendant on 29.10.2012, and that the 1st defendant had informed him that the registered sale deed was misplaced. The court held that if the deposit of the title deed was made on 13.02.2011, as the plaintiff now claimed, then the 2nd defendant's rights under the registered sale deed would be subject to the mortgage. However, if the deposit was made on 09.08.2013, as originally pleaded by the plaintiff, then the mortgage would be invalid as the 1st defendant would have lost his right over the property by then.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of the date of the registered sale deed from '09.07.1997' to '09.06.1997', but rejected the amendment seeking to change the date of deposit of the title deed from '09.08.2013' to '13.02.2011'.
ORDER :
This civil revision petition, under Section 115 CPC, by the 2nd defendant, is directed against the orders, dated 17.02.2020, allowing IA.No.1235 of 2019 in OS.No.175 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore, filed under Section 151 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
2. Heard Sri T. D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 for the sake of convenience and clarity. The 2nd defendant is shown to be not a necessary party to this revision petition.
3. The case of the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the request for amendment of the plaint, in brief, is as follows :
The 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on 12.02.2011 from the plaintiff for his business and other needs and executed the suit promissory note for the said amount in favour of the plaintiff on the even date, agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at the rate of 24% per annum with yearly rests on 09.06.2013. The 1st defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment and endorsed the said part-payment on the back side of the suit promissory note. Further, on demand of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, on 13.02.2011, deposited his original title deed, dated 09.06.1997, executed by Vemareddy Sujatha, in favour of the 1st defendant relating to the suit schedule property and made an endorsement on the back side of the suit promissory note to the said effect. Due to typographical mistake, the date of registered sale deed ‘09.06.1997’ was wrongly typed as 09.07.1997 in the plaint and plaint affidavit. Further, the date of deposit of original title deed on 13.02.2011 made by the 1st defendant which was endorsed on 09.08.2013, was also not mentioned in the plaint and the plaint affidavit due to oversight. There is no willful default or negligence on the part of the plaintiff and his counsel. Hence, the present application has been filed.
(b) The proposed amendments sought for by the plaintiff are as follows:
‘As demanded by the plaintiff to give security for discharge of debt 1st defendant on 13.02.2011 has deposited his property original title deed, i.e., registered sale deed, dated 09.06.1997 executed by Vemareddy Sujathamma in favour of the 1st defendant in relation to the plaint schedule property and thus created equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. Further, the 1st defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff on 09.08.2013 towards part payment of suit promissory note debt and on 09.08.2013 endorsed the said part payment along with mentioning the fact of deposit of his registered original title deeds on the backside of the suit promissory note and as stated supra the 1st defendant created equitable mortgage over the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. It is humbly submitted that the original registered sale deed, dated 09.06.1997 handed over by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff was misplaced.”
ii) Add the following after first sentence in the paragraph No.4 of the plaint:
“On 13.02.2011 when 1st defendant deposited his title deed, dated 09.06.1997 with the plaintiff”.
iii) Delete second and third sentences in Paragraph No.2 of plaint affidavit and substitute the same as follows:
“humbly submitted that as demanded by me on 13.02.2011 the first defendant has deposited with me his original registered sale deed dated 09.06.1997 executed by one Vemareddy Sujathamma in his favour. On 09.08.2013, the 1st defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to me towards part payment of suit promissory note debt and while endorsing the said part payment on the backside of the suit p
An amendment to a plaint that is not a mere typographical error, but a substantial change that would have a material bearing on the suit relief, cannot be allowed if it would prejudice the rights of ....
Amendment of plaint – All amendments which are necessary for determination of real question in controversy between parties are required to be allowed, unless proposed amendment has propensity to caus....
Purported equitable mortgage is hit by doctrine of lis pendens, since it is stated to have been entered fraudulently, deliberately, with a mala fide intention to defraud the plaintiff, that too pende....
Amendments to pleadings must be made in good faith and should not cause prejudice to the opposing party, especially if they seek to withdraw prior admissions.
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.
Amendments to written statements are permissible to clarify defenses without withdrawing admissions, particularly before trial commencement.
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
