Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23658
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
SUJOY PAUL, J
Ahmed Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Tayaba Khatoon – Respondent
CRP/2944/2024
Amendments to pleadings are to be allowed if necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice to the other side.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 17, Order IX Rule 7, Section 151 - Amendment application filed after commencement of trial - Court allowed amendment to correct typographical errors in plaint, despite petitioners’ claims of procedural impropriety and lack of opportunity to respond - Sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioners to file counter - Court upheld the trial court's order as it did not suffer from any patent illegality. (Paras 3-12)
(B) Amendment of pleadings - Amendments should be allowed if necessary for determining the real question in controversy and do not cause injustice to the other side - Delay alone is not a ground for disallowing amendments. (Paras 10-11)
(C) Scope of interference - The court's interference is limited to cases of lack of jurisdiction, patent illegality, or procedural impropriety - A different view is not a ground for interference. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff's amendment application to correct typographical errors after the trial commenced, claiming they were not given a chance to file a counter.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had ample opportunity to respond and that the amendment did not change the nature of the case or cause prejudice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to file a counter and whether the amendment application was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication and did not prejudice the defendants, affirming that procedural impropriety was not present.
Result: C.R.P.No. 2959 of 2024 and C.R.P.No. 2944 of 2024 are dismissed.
COMMON ORDER:
Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Sri G. Giridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. With the consent finally heard.
3. In C.R.P.No.2959 of 2024, the challenge is mounted to the order dated 13.03.2024 in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.876 of 2017, whereby application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) was allowed after commencement of the trial.
4. In C.R.P.No.2944 of 2024, the order dated 19.06.2024 is subject matter of challenge whereby application of present petitioners/defendants filed under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was dismissed for challenging the order dated 13.03.2024 in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.876 of 2017.
5. The admitted facts between the parties are that in O.S.No.876 of 2017, after commencement of trial, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The docket proceedings show that the matter was listed on 23.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and 12.03.2024. Since no counter was filed, the trial Court decided the said application on 13.03.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the petitioners’ grievance are two-fold.
Firstly , the petitioners/defendants were not given opportunity to file counter and secondly , the impugned order allowing the amendment application is passed mechanically, without considering the nature of cross- examination which had taken place pursuant to which respondent No.1/plaintiff tried to improve his case by filing amendment application.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff supported the impugned order and submits that sufficient opportunities were granted to the present petitioners/defendants to file counter to the amendment application. The petitioners/defendants failed to avail the said opportunity and therefore, it cannot be said that proceedings suffer from any procedural impropriety. On merits, it is submitted that the different paragraphs of plaint averments show that there were typographical error in relation to description of schedule-A property. In order to streamline the same and iron out the crease and with a view to correct the typographical error, amendment application was filed. The trial Court has not committed any error of law in allowing the amendment application. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs.,
2. M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons ,
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited ,
4. Raj Kumar v. Dipender Kaur Sethi ,
5. S.M.M. Abdi v. Janaki Ballavi Patnaik ,
8. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties fairly informed this Court that after amendment application was allowed, the present petitioners/defendants have already filed their amended counter.
10. So far question of procedural impropriety is concerned, the docket order dated 23.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and 12.03.2024 clearly show that the petitioners/defendants were given opportunity to file counter to the amendment application. Sufficient time was given to the petitioners/defendants to file counter. Thus, this Court is unable to persuade with the line of argument that learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants were not given sufficient opportunity to file counter. Merely, because application under Order IX Rule 7 of
