Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. AMRNATH GOUD, J.
M/s. Raja Pushpa Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Smt. B.Venkatamma & Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition Nos.2551 & 2608, 2896 & 2915 OF 2019
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri P.Venkat Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri T. Venkat Reddy, Sri C. Hari Preeth, Sri K. Venkata Narasimha Reddy,
Point of Law
Rule 17 of Order VI CPC confers power on the Court to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, proviso restricts that power, once the trial has commenced
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 227 - Plaintiff-Master B. Nandi Vardhan Reddy who is aged about 8 months, represented by his mother and natural guardian by name B. Sunitha, filed O.S.No.66 of 2014 before the trial Court, seeking a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit A to D schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment and possession of 1/4th such share to him and for a consequential declaration that certain documents are null and void and not binding on him to the extent of his share and also to pass a final decree by appointing an advocate commissioner to divide the suit schedule A to D properties by metes and bounds into four equal shares and to put him in possession of his legitimate share – Held, No doubt, Rule 17 of Order VI CPC confers power on the Court to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, proviso restricts that power, once the trial has commenced. Unless the Court satisfies that there is a reasonable cause for allowing the amendment normally the court has to reject such a request - Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, this Court is of the view that the relief - case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, this Court is of the view that when grant of impleadment in the circumstances narrated above and at this belated stage when evidence of material witnesses on both sides is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, is liable to be dismissed, the grant of present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied - In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. (Paras 20,21,22,23)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff-Master B. Nandi Vardhan Reddy who is aged about 8 months, represented by his mother and natural guardian by name B. Sunitha, filed O.S.No.66 of 2014 before the trial Court, seeking a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit A to D schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment and possession of 1/4th such share to him and for a consequential declaration that certain documents are null and void and not binding on him to the extent of his share and also to pass a final decree by appointing an advocate commissioner to divide the suit schedule A to D properties by metes and bounds into four equal shares and to put him in possession of his legitimate share.
Finding of the Court:
Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, this Court is of the view that the relief case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, this Court is of the view that when grant of impleadment in the circumstances narrated above and at this belated stage when evidence of material witnesses on both sides is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, is liable to be dismissed, the grant of present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied.
Result : In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed
ORDER :
1. All these Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 04.09.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.803 of 2019 and 804 of 2019 in O.S.No.66 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Court, Medak at Sangareddy. Since the point involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, all these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2. The factual matrix that led to the filing of all these Civil Revision Petitions is as follows:
3. Plaintiff is the son of the first defendant through his second wife (Smt.Suneetha). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are son and daughter of the first defendant through his first wife (Smt. late Pushpa).
4. The plaintiff-Master B. Nandi Vardhan Reddy who is aged about 8 months, represented by his mother and natural guardian by name B. Sunitha, filed O.S.No.66 of 2014 before the trial Court, seeking a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the suit A to D schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment and possession of 1/4th such share to him and for a consequential declaration that certain documents are null and void and not binding on him to the extent of his share and also to pass a final decree by appointing an advocate commissioner to divide the suit schedule A to D properties by metes and bounds into four equal shares and to put him in possession of his legitimate share.
5. While the suit is pending and at the stage issues were framed and the evidence of the plaintiff as well as the first defendant in the suit was over, one Smt. B.Venkatamma, who is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, filed I.A.No.804 of 2019 in the said suit under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC and also under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to implead her as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. Her claim is that the plaintiff filed the suit without knowledge that she is also having 1/3rd share in the properties inherited by her father-in-law– Hanumantha Reddy and that she, out of love and affection, had gifted her undivided 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff under registered gift settlement deed and the same was accepted. Therefore, she is necessary and proper party to the suit. The petitioner Smt.B.Venkatamma filed another petition i.e. I.A.No.803 of 2019 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC and under Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice for consequential amendments in the plaint. Both the petitions were opposed by respondent Nos.3, 9, 10 and 11 by filing separate counters.
6. The trial Court, having considered the rival contentions, observed that said Smt.B.Venkatamma, who is the wife of late B.Hanumanth Reddy, i.e. paternal grandfather of the original plaintiff, is a necessary and proper party to the suit filed by the original plaintiff, seeking partition and accordingly allowed I.A.No.804 of 2019. The trial Court by further observing that since I.A.No.804 of 2019 was allowed permitting the petitioner to come on record as plaintiff No.2, allowed the I.A.No.803 of 2019 also as the petitioner filed the petition seeking consequential amendment in the plaint consequent to her impleading as plaintiff No.2 in the suit.
7. Aggrieved thereby, one Mr.P.Mahender Reddy, the 10th respondent in his individual capacity and also in the capacity of Director of the 9th respondent – M/s. Raja Pushpa Properties Pvt. Ltd., filed Civil Revision Petition Nos.2608 of 2019 and 2551 of 2019 respectively. Similarly, aggrieved by the very same orders, the third respondent in both the I.As by name B.Srikar Reddy filed Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2915 of 2019 and 2896 of 2019 respectively.
8. It is pertinent to note that the original plaintiff did not oppose the orders passed by the trial Court in the above two I.As.
9. Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Revision Petition Nos.2608 and 2551 of 2019, contended that the first respondent herein – Smt.B.Venkatamm
