SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Bezawada Mastan, S/o. Chinnodu - Petitioner
Versus
Matcharla Venkata Lakshmi Narayana Gupta, S/o. Srinivasa Rao & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 248 of 2023
Decided On : 02-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bolla Venkata Rama Rao.
For the Respondents: Jayanti S.C. Sekhar.

Pre-trial amendments necessary to adjudicate disputes are to be allowed.

Headnote:

Amendment - Civil Procedure - The court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment to the suit, holding that the proposed amendment was necessary to determine the dispute between the parties judiciously and that pre-trial amendments which are necessary to adjudicate disputes are to be allowed.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction and later sought amendment to declare the defendant's sale deed as concocted and fabricated, and for mandatory interim injunction. The defendant opposed the application, contending that it was barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment, stating that the proposed amendment was necessary and would determine the dispute between the parties judiciously. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Issues: Whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff would change the nature of the suit and is barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proposed amendment was necessary and would not change the nature of the suit. It emphasized that pre-trial amendments necessary to adjudicate disputes are to be allowed.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

ORDER :

Defendant in suit filed the above revision against the order dated 21.11.2022 in I.A.No.449 of 2022 in O.S.No.55 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Anakapalle.

2. Suit O.S.No.55 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.187 of 2015 under Order 39 rules 1 and 2, r/w section 151 of CPC to grant exparte ad-interim injunction. The Court ordered notice. as per the plaint, plaint schedule property is shown as vacant site, admeasuring 163.77 square yards in survey No.21/1, 22, 23, 24-1, 27-1 adjoining to house plot 78 in Pisinikada Village, Anakapalle Mandal. Later, plaintiff in the plaint requested the Court to close the interlocutory application. Recording the same, I.A.No.187 of 2015 was closed on 23.08.2021.

3. Defendant filed the written statement in July, 2015. In the written statement it was contended inter alia that, defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 01.04.2015. Defendant constructed house in the schedule property and, also constructed compound wall by obtaining permission from the local authority. It was further contended that, he also got electricity service connection No.1567 to the house constructed in the schedule property.

4. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.449 of 2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 on July, 2022. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it was averred that, pending the suit, defendant started construction of structure step by step and completed the construction from the past 7 years from 2015 to 2022 and also constructed compound wall. Photographs are filed showing the development in the schedule property. Hence, amendment is sought to declare the sale deed under which the defendant claimed his title and possession of the suit schedule property is concocted and fabricated and does not bind the respondent and, also for mandatory interim injunction.

5. Defendant filed counter and opposed the application. Trial Court by order dated 21.11.2022 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision petition is filed.

6. Heard Sri B. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that by filing written statement in July, 2015, it was contended about the construction made in the schedule property and also getting electricity connection. Application was filed seeking amendment in the year 2022 and the same is barred by limitation. He also would contend that trial Court without appreciating these facts allowed the application.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial Court.

9. The point for consideration is :

    Whether the amendment sought for by the plaintiff would change the nature of the suit and is barred by limitation?

10. Suit O.S.No.55 of 2015 was filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction. Plaintiff also filed I.A.No.187 of 2015 seeking ad-interim injunction. However, the application was closed at the request of the plaintiff by order dated 23.08.2021. Defendant, by filing a written statement, contended purchase of the property and also the construction of house in the schedule property and also compound wall. The defendant, in fact, pleaded that he got electricity connection.

11. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking amendment, plaintiff averred that pending the suit, defendant started construction and the construction went on for 7 years and he completed the construction and hence, application is filed seeking amendment. The amendment sought by the plaintiff is to declare that the sale deed of the defendant does not bind the plaintiff and in fact, mandate for injunction. Plaintiff, in the plaint asserted title to the schedule property and also possession.

12. The proposed amendment, in view of the averments in the affidavit, is necessary and it will determine the lis between the parties judici

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top