Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Chakali Pentamma – Appellant
Versus
Chakali Balamma – Respondent
CRP No.199 of 2020
Decided on : 04-03-2022
Order-I Rule-10 - Amendment of Pleadings - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151 - [Survey Nos.213/A, 214/AA, 216/A] - The court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order-I, Rule-10 r/w Sec.151 of CPC for inclusion of certain lands in the schedule of properties, as it was not maintainable at a belated stage after commencement of trial. The court also referred to Order-VI Rule 17 CFPC, which prevents filing of an application for amendment of pleadings after the trial is commenced, unless the party could not raise the matter before commencement of trial. The court held that the plaintiffs were not diligent in filing the application for inclusion of properties in the plaint schedule, and thus, the application was not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of certain properties. During the trial, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order-I, Rule-10 r/w Sec.151 of CPC for inclusion of certain lands in the schedule of properties. The defendants resisted the application, stating that it was an afterthought to fill up the lacunae in the plaintiffs' case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for inclusion of properties in the schedule of property was not maintainable at a belated stage after commencement of trial, as the plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the properties and had handed over a copy of the sale deed to their counsel at the time of drafting the plaint. The court also directed the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the original suit within six months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order-I, Rule-10 of CPC for inclusion of certain properties in the schedule of property was maintainable at a belated stage after commencement of trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for inclusion of properties in the schedule of property was not maintainable, as the plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the properties and had not shown due diligence in seeking the amendment earlier.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the order of the trial Court. The trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of the original suit within six months, and the parties were directed to cooperate for the same.
ORDER :
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 25.04.2019 in IA No.569 of 2019 in OS No.222 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.
2. This application in IA No.569 of 2019 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order-I, Rule-10 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for inclusion of certain lands in the schedule of properties.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the original suit No.222 of 2012 for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties. On receipt of suit summons, the defendants made appearance, written statement was filed, issues were settled, on behalf of plaintiffs evidence of PW.1 was filed, that witness was also cross-examined, but evidence of plaintiff is in progress. At that stage, the present application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order-I, Rule-10 r/w Sec.151 of CPC for inclusion of land in Survey Nos.213/A, 214/AA, 216/A and the house bearing No.4-93 in the schedule of property.
4. The main averments of the affidavit in support of this application are that when the suit was coming for plaintiffs’ further evidence, first plaintiff went to the office of her advocate, then she came to know that the suit is only filed in respect of one survey number leaving behind other landed property, then she has instructed her counsel to include the said properties as indicated above. It is only due to illiteracy, the plaintiffs could not include the above said properties at the time of filing of the plaint. It is just and essential to amend the plaint by including the said properties.
5. This application was resisted by the defendants before the trial Court. They filed a detailed counter highlighting the admissions made by PW.1 in her cross-examination stating that even prior to filing of the suit, PW.1 is aware that her father left behind the land in Survey Nos.213/A1, 214/A1 and Sy.No.216/A1, besides the suit land and these properties were not included or made part of schedule of properties in the present suit; PW.1 further admitted that the plaintiffs have sold the house to the first defendant; she has clearly admitted at the time of filing of the suit, she along with her mother went to her advocate’s office and gave instructions. These admissions of PW.1 are to the effect that her mother and first defendant has executed registered sale deed document No.6842 of 2004 in favour of the second defendant selling the entire land in Survey No.70/A1 - 17 ½ guntas, Survey No.213/A1 – 4 guntas, Sruvey No.214/A1 – 4 guntas, Survey No.216/A1 – 4 guntas, total Ac.0.29½ guntas and handing over the said sale deed to their advocate. Accordingly, the defendants have resisted this application stating that it is only an after thought to fill up the lacunae in the plaintiffs’ case.
6. Further, the second defendant in his written statement has categorically mentioned about the purchasing of said lands through registered sale deed document No.6842 of 2004 and the pleadings are aware of the said transaction. In fact, PW.1 in her evidence admitted that there are some other properties which were sold to the second defendant which was left by her father and at this belated stage, the plaintiffs have come up with the present application for addition of properties only to fill up the lacunae in their case and the petition is not maintainable.
7. The trial Court after careful appreciation of facts, the material available on record has dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.
8. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material available on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
9. The plaintiffs have filed the original suit for partition. Evidence commenced. In fact, the defendants in their counter affidavit in IA No.569 of 2019 they have extracted severa
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for amendment of pleadings under Order-I, Rule-10 of CPC is not maintainable at a belated stage after commencement of trial, un....
An application to amend the plaint is maintainable even after passing of the preliminary decree, since the suit is not terminated and proceedings are continuous.
Post-trial amendments to pleadings are generally not favored by courts and may be rejected if they are barred by limitation, would cause prejudice to the opposite party, change the nature of the suit....
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.
The mandatory nature of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, restricts the court's jurisdiction to allow amendments after the trial has commenced, emphasizing the ne....
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
