COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.570 of 2020 is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 02.01.2020, passed in I.A.No.590 of 2019 in O.S.No.560 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, dismissing the petition filed under Order VI Rule 18 read with Section 151 CPC to pass orders not permitting the respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint, as per orders dated 05.09.2018 in I.A.No.238 of 2018 in O.S.No.560 of 2015. 2 .

C.R.P.No.572 of 2020 is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 08.05.2019, passed in I.A.No.710 of 2018 in I.A.No.238 of 2018 in O.S.No.560 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, allowing the petition filed under Section 151 CPC to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit costs of Rs.3,000/- in court as the respondent/defendant’s counsel refused to receive the same in

I.A.No.238 of 2018. 3 .

I.A.No.238 of 2018 which was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint was allowed, on 05.09.2018, with a condition to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent/ defendant and the matter was posted to 12.09.2018. On 12.09.2018, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant filed a memo to the effect that the respondent/defendant is going to prefer a revision before the High Court against the orders in I.A.No.238 of 2018 and therefore, the respondent/defendant has not received the costs of

Rs.3,000/- from the petitioner/plaintiff on 12.09.2018. 4 .

C.R.P.No.6238 of 2018 was filed against the orders in I.A.No.238 of 2018 and an interim order of stay was obtained on 23.01.2019 staying all further proceedings in the suit. The same has been communicated to the Court on 29.01.2019 by filing a memo to that effect. The revision was ultimately dismissed on 14.03.2019.

5 . In

between, on

31.10.2018, the petitioner/plaintiff filed

I.A.No.710 of 2018 seeking permission of the Court to deposit costs of

Rs.3,000/- in Court. Finally, I.A.No.710 of 2018 was allowed on

08.05.2019. Consequently, costs were deposited and amendment was carried out on 28.06.2019. Meanwhile, I.A.No.590 of 2019 was filed by the respondent/defendant on 26.04.2019 praying the Court not to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out the amendment. The said petition is filed under Order XVI Rule 18 CPC in view of bar as to the time limit was indicated for carrying out amendment after leave to amendment was granted by the Court. The said petition was dismissed on 02.01.2020 against which C.R.P.No.570 of 2020 was filed. While I.A.No.590 of 2019 is pending, I.A.No.710 of 2018 was disposed of and costs were deposited and amendment was carried out.

Thus, both the revision petitions have come up for decision by this Court.

6 . Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy , learned counsel representing Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri S.V.Muni Reddy , learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

7 . Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that time stipulated under Order VI Rule 18 CPC is mandatory whereas the petition seeking permission for deposit vide I.A.No.710 of 2018 was filed with 49 days delay, though 14 days time only was given under Order VI Rule 18 CPC. He further submitted that since the time stipulated therein is mandatory, the trial Court ought not to have permitted to carry out the amendment after so long delay. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupa (dead) by LRs. 1 , wherein at paragraphs 138 and 140, it was held as under:

“138.

It may be true that not only the memorandum of appeal but also the reference was amended. Mr. Rao pointed out that the necessary amendments have been