P VENKATESWARA RAO, KHAMMAM DIST vs MAMIDI VENKATA KOTESWARA RAO, KRISHA DIST & 3 OTHERS

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6673

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3743 OF 2016 Between:
1. P VENKATESWARA RAO, KHAMMAM DIST S/o Late Rangaiah Age:52 years, Occ: Business R/o Polampalli Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna Dist, Dr.No.7-9-201, Sriram Hills, Damasalapuram (V) Khammam Dist.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. MAMIDI VENKATA KOTESWARA RAO, KRISHA DIST & 3 OTHERS S/o late Ramaiah Age: 48 years, Occ: Business R/o Main Road, Penuganchiprolu Village, Krishna Dist.
2. Mamidi Gopalakrishna Murthy @ Gopi S/o Venkata Koteswara Rao Age:25 years, Occ: Student R/o Main Road, Penuganchiprolu Village Krishna Dist.
3. Smt.Vasireddy Chaintanya W/o Sekhar Age:27 Years, Occ: Housewife R/o Main Road, Penuganchiprolu Village Krishna Dist.
4. Smt.Mamidi Savitramma W/o Ramaiah Age:64 years, Occ: Housewife R/o Main Road, Penuganchiprolu Village Krishna Dist.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following: ORDER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.Nos.3743 and 3375 of 2016

COMMON ORDER:

1. The C.R.P.No.3743 of 2016 is filed against the interlocutory order dated 28.03.2016 passed in I.A.938 of 2016 in O.S.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Learned XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District.

2. The C.R.P.No.3375 of 2016 is filed against the interlocutory order dated 28.03.2016 passed in I.A.939 of 2016 in O.S.No.45 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Learned XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District.

3. The I.A.No.938 of 2015 was filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit O.S.No.45 of 2013 and I.A.No.939 of 2015 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint.

4. As both the Revisions arise out of the same suit and are inter-dependent on one another, a Common Order is being passed.

5. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.01.2011. After the closure of evidence, interlocutory applications, as mentioned supra, were filed to reopen and to seek amendment.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint considering the defense taken in the written statement, which is to the effect that the executant of the agreement of sale did not have the authority to enter into agreement of sale for the entire plaint schedule property as the plaint schedule property is a joint family property. By virtue of the amendment, the plaintiff sought for an alternative relief to the effect that if the executant of the agreement of sale i.e., defendant No.1 is found to be owner having lesser share in the suit land than agreed to be sold to the petitioner under the suit agreement of sale, the suit be decreed to the extent, which the defendant No.1 is entitled to sell and that the petitioner is willing to pay the proportionate sale consideration.

7. The Trial Court after referring to the merits of the application dismissed it on the short ground that the prayer sought is contrary to the pleadings and prayer in the original plaint. This Court after examining the proposed amendment is of the opinion that the amendment that is sought is not contrary to the original pleadings but an alternative plea considering the defense in the written statement. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court does not appear to be correct.

8. The alternative plea sought by the petitioner does not require any additional evidence and the evidence on record is sufficient for disposal. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court in I.A.Nos.938 & 939 of 2015, dated 28.03.2016 in O.S.No.45 of 2013 is set aside and the Trial Court shall proceed for disposal of the suit, as expeditiously as possible.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. As the applications have been filed after the closure of evidence, the petitioner, for his lack of diligence shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents as costs, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 12.02.2024 IS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.Nos.3743 and 3375 of 2016 Date: 12.02.2024 IS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document