Amendments to plaints are permissible if they do not change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice, allowing for inconsistent alternative reliefs.

ORDER :

(NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.)

Impugned order: This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 27.02.2023 in I.A.No.54 of 2020 in O.S.No.201 of 2017 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, rejecting an application for amendment of plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the Petitioner/Plaintiff.

2. The introductory facts: The suit O.S.No.201 of 2017 was filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.9 crores within a time to be fixed by the Court and in the event the amount not being paid, sale of mortgaged properties towards satisfaction of the decree and the further relief sought was interest @ 24% p.a.from the date of suit till realization.

3. The facts leading to the institution of the suit as per the plaint are that the Petitioner and Respondents are friends and the Petitioner used to lend money by way of hand loans to meet their personal expenses.

4. In the year 2012, the Respondent No. 1 was involved in real estate and was borrowing amounts from the Petitioner from time to time. The outstanding amounts payable to the Petitioner at one stage came to Rs.6 crores. At that point of time, the Respondents had purchased the suit scheduled property A, B and C under three individual sale deeds for different extents. In view of the outstanding amount, the Respondents voluntarily came forward to provide security to the amount and delivered original documents of title of a portion of the schedule property standing in the name of Respondent No.1, i.e. about 18 cents and about 161/3 cents standing in the name of Respondent No.2.

5. The Respondents delivered original documents of title for the said portions along with the xerox copies for the remaining portion i.e. 12 cents standing in the name of Respondent No.1 on the ground that the originals were not immediately available and that the originals would be delivered at a later point of time. As a result, the Respondents mortgaged the scheduled properties. As the Respondents had agreed to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the monies borrowed from time to time, the interest along with principal borrowed by the Respondents amounted to Rs.9 crores and the Respondents executed receipts in proportion to the monies borrowed for each of the three properties.

6. The Respondent No.1 said to have executed two receipts on 20.04.2016 for Rs.3,49,78,000/- and Rs.2,33,00,000/- and Respondent No.2 executed a receipt for Rs.3,17,22,000/-in favour of the Petitioner. To further assure the amounts due, the Respondents are said to have executed three registered General Power of Attorneys (GPAs) in favour of the Petitioner with regard to the schedule properties. On 12.02.2017, the Respondent No.1 acknowledged the dues towards the principal amount as well as interest and agreed to repay @ 12 lakhs per month from March 2017.

7. As the Respondents were unable to keep up their promise of repayment, Respondent No.1 on 15.09.2017 said to have purchased a stamp paper and typed out a document, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed and delivered to the Petitioner agreeing to pay the amounts due by 31.12.2017. Subsequently, it was pleaded that Respondent No.1 had unilaterally cancelled the registered General Power of Attorneys given to the Petitioner and since the conduct of the Respondents amounts to repudiation to their promises to pay the outstanding amounts to the Petitioner, the suit was filed for foreclosure of the equitable mortgage and recovery of monies due.

8. The Respondents filed their written statement disputing the claims of the Petitioner. In their written statement, it was pleaded that the Respondents were involved in real estate business for over 25 years and it was pleaded that the Petitioner had approached the Respondents for purchase of sites in the name of his sons by namely R.A.Devaraju and Chama Devaraju and after due negotiations, cheques for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs were given and stated that his sons would pay the balance sale consideration.