IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Thirumala Muni Krishna – Petitioner
Versus
S. Shoukath Ali – Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.736, 737, 738 & 739 Of 2023
Decided On : 12-07-2023
Amendment of Pleadings - Civil Procedure Code - Section 151, Order 6 Rule 17, Order 18 Rule 17, Order VII Rule 14(3) - The court allowed the amendments to the pleadings seeking declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The court emphasized that the amendments did not change the nature of the suit and were necessary for comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed petitions to reopen the suit, receive documents, recall a witness, and amend the plaint. The trial court dismissed the petitions, but the revision petitions were allowed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendments to the pleadings were necessary for comprehensive adjudication of the dispute and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court emphasized that the amendments did not change the nature of the suit and were necessary for proper adjudication of all disputes between the parties.
Issues: The issues involved the dismissal of the petitions by the trial court and the necessity of the proposed amendments to the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the amendments to the pleadings, emphasizing that they did not change the nature of the suit and were necessary for comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. The court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the trial court's orders, and allowed the applications for amendment of pleadings. The court emphasized that the amendments did not change the nature of the suit and were necessary for comprehensive adjudication of the dispute.
ORDER :
1. C.R.P.Nos.736, 737 & 738 of 2023, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the common order, dated 09.02.2023, dismissing I.A.Nos.382 of 2022, 383 of 2022 and 384 of 2022 in O.S.No.103 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, whereas C.R.P.No.739 of 2023 is preferred against the order, dated 09.02.2023, passed in I.A.No.385 of 2022 in the same suit.
2. Heard Sri S.V. Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs. In spite of service of notice on the 1st respondent, no appearance has been made and the 2nd respondent was shown as died even before the trial Court.
3. I.A.No.382 of 2022 is filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit for the purpose of marking the documents; I.A.No.383 of 2022 is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to recall PW1 and to mark the documents; I.A.No.384 of 2022 is filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC to receive the documents by condoning the delay. I.A.No.385 of 2022 is filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint and also to make necessary consequential amendments.
4. The case of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in support of their case, briefly stated, is as follows:
(a) The suit is posted to 05.12.2022 for arguments. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs handed over the link documents to their previous counsel but, he failed to file the same. Hence, he is now filing the list mentioned certified copies of various sale deeds obtained recently. Therefore, the petitions, viz., I.A.Nos.382, 384 & 383 of 2022 to reopen the suit, to receive the documents and to recall PW1 for the purpose of marking the same through him were filed. The list of documents is indicated in the proposed amendments to the plaint in the later part of this order. So, to avoid repetition, they are not noted here.
(b) I.A.No.385 of 2022 is filed alleging that the suit was filed against the defendants for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants not to enter into the suit schedule property, that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs handed over the link documents to their previous counsel and he has not filed the said documents into the Court, that the defendants denied the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, they are advised to amend the plaint pleadings seeking declaration of their right and title over the suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction.
5. Counter affidavit was filed opposing the petitions. It is stated that the documents sought to be filed are no way connected to the suit and that the petitions are intended to drag on the matter unnecessarily to harass the defendant without any reasonable cause. It is prayed to dismiss the petitions.
6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court, by way of common order, dated 09.02.2023, dismissed I.A.Nos.382 of 2022, 383 of 2022, 384 of 2022 and by a separate order of even date, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.385 of 2022 also.
7. Aggrieved by the common order, dated 09.02.2023, passed in I.A.Nos.382 of 2022, 383 of 2022, 384 of 2022, C.R.P.Nos.736, 737 & 738 of 2023 are preferred, and whereas aggrieved by order, dated 09.02.2023, passed in I.A.No.385 of 2022, C.R.P.No.739 of 2023 is preferred. In the grounds of revisions, the petitioners reiterated their pleaded case.
8. Since all these revisions are connected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
C.R.P.Nos.736, 737 & 738 of 2022:
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents proposed to be filed are very much required to prove the case of the petitioners and that they were, in fact, handed over to the earli
Abdul Rehman & Another v. Mohd. Ruldu & Others
Pankaja and Anr. v. Yellapa (Dead) By L.Rs. and Ors.
Adusumilli Venkateswar Rao and another v. Chalasani Hymavathi
AI
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing documents can be condoned to meet the ends of justice, and the court may allow the filing of documents with necessary cost....
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.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.