THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2009 of 2018

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 29.01.2018 passed in Memo S.R.No.4540 of 2016 in I.A.No.2094 of 2003 in O.S.No.651 of 1993 by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.1 in the suit had passed away, and plaintiff No.2 was brought on record as his legal representative vide Orders in I.A.No.896 of 2009. Subsequently, plaintiff Nos.3 to 7 were also impleaded as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1 by virtue of Orders in I.A.No.1642 of 2011 dated 22.12.2011. The defendant challenged the said impleadment in C.R.P.No.232 of 2012, which was dismissed by this Court on 14.12.2012. However, due to an oversight, these legal representatives were not impleaded in I.A.No.2094 of 2003, which remained pending before this High Court. A memo dated 18.10.2016 was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to carry out the said amendment, which was opposed by the defendant on the grounds that no such amendment can be allowed after the statutory period of 14 days or the extended limit of 30 days under Section 148 of CPC. The defendant also argued that the earlier applications did not include any prayer to amend other pending interlocutory applications and relied on case law supporting strict time limits for amendments.

3. The Trial Court, vide order dated 29.01.2018 allowed the memo noting that the legal representatives had already been brought on record in the plaint and amendments had been carried out accordingly. It observed that the failure to amend I.A.No.2094 of 2003 was due to oversight and not willful negligence, and there was no substantial prejudice caused to the defendant. The trial Court further held that procedural lapses should not hinder substantive justice, and in the interest of justice, it could exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the defendant’s objection and allowed the plaintiff to carry out the necessary amendments in I.A.No.2094 of 2003 and directed filing of a neat copy of the petition within one week. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri K. Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, the weight of evidence on record, and the probabilities of the case and that the trial Court has committed a grave error in taking cognizance of a mere memo filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and in passing substantive orders thereon, despite there being specific statutory provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure to seek such reliefs through properly constituted interlocutory applications. The practice of filing memos, as opposed to formal applications under relevant provisions, and seeking consequential reliefs has been consistently deprecated by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the trial Court below ought to have refused to act upon the memo and should have insisted on a regular interlocutory application being filed for the relief sought.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the trial Court committed a contradiction in terms by acknowledging that it has no power under Section 148 CPC to extend time beyond 30 days for carrying out amendments, yet proceeded to allow the memo filed by the plaintiffs which sought to do precisely that carry out an amendment to I.A.No.2094 of 2003 well beyond the statutorily permissible period. He argued that Section 148 of CPC clearly mandates that any enlargement of time granted by the Court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by the Code shall not exceed 30 days i