Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L. Rs. VS M/s S. K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Ajendraprasadji N. Pande VS Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. ...

Checking relevance for Ganduri Koteshwaramma VS Chakiri Yanadi...

Ganduri Koteshwaramma VS Chakiri Yanadi - 2011 7 Supreme 40 : Yes, the suit schedule can be amended after the filing of the advocate commissioner''''s report. According to the legal documents, a suit for partition continues after the passing of a preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed. If supervening circumstances occur—such as the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which came into force on September 9, 2005—the trial court has the power to amend or modify the preliminary decree to reflect the changed situation. This includes re-allotting shares equally among all coparceners, including daughters, even after the commissioner’s report has been filed, provided the final decree has not yet been passed. The court’s power to modify a preliminary decree in light of changed circumstances is not barred by Section 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, or any other procedural rule.Checking relevance for M. REVANNA VS ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. ...

Checking relevance for Shivshankara VS H. P. Vedavyasa Char...

Checking relevance for Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal VS K. K. Modi...

Checking relevance for Mohammed Iqbal VS Bochu Ameer...

Checking relevance for O. P. Ravindran VS M. S. Subbaiah...

O. P. Ravindran VS M. S. Subbaiah - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1484 : Yes, the suit schedule can be amended based on the Advocate Commissioner''''s report filed after the commencement of trial. The court held that parties can be permitted to amend their pleadings at any stage, including post-trial, with the leave of the court, provided the amendment is bonafide, relevant, and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties. In this case, the petitioner discovered after the Advocate Commissioner''''s report that the encroachment was 2400 sq. ft. instead of the originally claimed 300 sq. ft., and the court emphasized that such amendments should be allowed if made in good faith and despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised earlier. The court further noted that the parties can bring forward amendments at any stage to determine the real question in controversy, and courts should be liberal in accepting such amendments, especially when they prevent multiplicity of proceedings.Checking relevance for K.S.Santhosh Burleigh, S/o.Late K.J.Burleigh vs M.Thirupa Reddy, S/o Late Venketa Reddy...

Checking relevance for Guttula Johnson VS Pulla Govindu...

Checking relevance for Veerla Dasaradha Ramayya VS Veerla Venkateswara Rao...

Veerla Dasaradha Ramayya VS Veerla Venkateswara Rao - 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 752 : Yes, the suit schedule can be amended even after the commencement of trial and after the advocate commissioner has filed the report. The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for amendment of the plaint on the ground that it was filed after the advocate commissioner had submitted the report. The court emphasized that amendment of the plaint can be sought even after the commencement of trial and before the final decree, and that the fact that the commissioner''''s report had been filed does not bar such amendment. The court further directed the learned Junior Civil Judge to consider the case as an old case and dispose of it expeditiously, including reconsidering the plea for amendment.Checking relevance for Oruganti Ramulu VS P. Ravindar Goud...

Oruganti Ramulu VS P. Ravindar Goud - 2022 0 Supreme(Telangana) 782 : Yes, the suit schedule can be amended after the commencement of trial based on the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. The court held that amendments to pleadings are permissible at any stage of proceedings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, provided they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In this case, the Advocate Commissioner''''s report revealed that the land was not under cultivation and that basements had been constructed, which led the plaintiffs to seek amendment of the plaint from perpetual injunction to include claims for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and mandatory injunction to dismantle the basements. The court emphasized that the dominant purpose of allowing amendments is to minimize litigation and ensure effective adjudication of the real controversy. The amendment was not considered to change the nature of the suit, as it was based on facts already pleaded and sought to rectify the absence of material particulars. The court further noted that delay in filing the amendment is not a bar, especially when the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication and does not cause irreparable prejudice to the other side. Therefore, the amendment was allowed despite the trial having commenced.Checking relevance for SWAMI PREMANANDA BHARATHI VS SWAMI YOGANANDA BHARATHI...

Checking relevance for Tukaram Annaba Chavan VS Machindra Yeshwant Patil...

Checking relevance for Lekh Raj VS Muni Lal...

Checking relevance for J. Samuel VS Gattu Mahesh...

Checking relevance for Baldev Singh VS Manohar Singh...

Checking relevance for Vidyabai VS Padmalatha...

Checking relevance for Rani VS Dhanalakshmi Ammal...

Rani VS Dhanalakshmi Ammal - 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 1143 : Yes, the suit schedule can be amended after the commencement of trial based on a report filed by an Advocate Commissioner, provided the amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and does not prejudice the rights of the other side. The court may allow such amendment if it is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before the trial commenced. In this case, the trial court allowed the amendment because the Advocate Commissioner’s report (filed before trial) confirmed the defendants'''' construction on the suit property, which was relevant to the real dispute. However, the revision court set aside the order, holding that the amendment would introduce a new case and prejudice the defendants’ rights. Thus, while the report supports the necessity of amendment, the court’s discretion must be exercised carefully to avoid injustice.

• Court's Discretion to Amend Pleadings Post-Commissioner's Report - Once the Advocate Commissioner's report clearly delineates the property boundaries and measurements, the Court should be liberal in permitting amendments to the plaint to reflect this new information. Such amendments are typically allowed without delay after the report's submission, especially when the report provides precise measurements of encroachment or property extents. V.Matheswaran vs M.C.Ragul - Madras, PANAKALA BHARATHI vs BONU SYAMALA & 10 OTHERS - Andhra Pradesh, JEEVANANTHAM vs DURGADEVI - Madras

• Role and Impact of Advocate Commissioner's Report - The report aids in localizing and demarcating the suit property, which is crucial for cases involving possession, encroachment, or boundary disputes. While the report is an important piece of evidence, it is not binding on the Court, which retains the authority to accept, reject, or rely on it alongside oral and documentary evidence. Objections to the report can be filed and examined during trial. PANAKALA BHARATHI vs BONU SYAMALA & 10 OTHERS - Andhra Pradesh, V.Matheswaran vs M.C.Ragul - Madras, JEEVANANTHAM vs DURGADEVI - Madras, Santhapuram Anand vs Santhapuram Janardhan Reddy - Telangana

• Procedure for Objecting and Amending Based on the Report - Parties can file objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report and cross-examine the Commissioner if necessary. The Court can then decide on these objections and determine whether the report should influence the final judgment. Amendments to pleadings, including changing the nature of the suit (e.g., from injunction to declaration), are permissible if supported by the Commissioner's findings. Santhapuram Anand vs Santhapuram Janardhan Reddy - Telangana, V.Matheswaran vs M.C.Ragul - Madras, PANAKALA BHARATHI vs BONU SYAMALA & 10 OTHERS - Andhra Pradesh

• Timing and Conditions for Amendments - Amendments based on the Commissioner's report are generally allowed after its submission and can be made without delay. Courts emphasize that such amendments are contingent upon the report's findings and the parties' right to object. The Court's primary concern is to ensure a fair trial where the property boundaries are accurately determined before final adjudication. V.Matheswaran vs M.C.Ragul - Madras, JEEVANANTHAM vs DURGADEVI - Madras

• Additional Considerations - The appointment of Advocate Commissioners is necessary for accurate measurement and demarcation, especially in boundary disputes. However, their reports are subject to scrutiny, and their examination during trial is essential if objections are raised. The Court's independent evaluation of the report ensures that justice is served based on comprehensive evidence. PANAKALA BHARATHI vs BONU SYAMALA & 10 OTHERS - Andhra Pradesh, V.Matheswaran vs M.C.Ragul - Madras, Kona Govinda Rao vs Popuri Samar Sen - Telangana, Cheruku Siddiram Reddy vs Cheruku Shyamavva - Telangana

Analysis and Conclusion:After a Trial Advocate Commissioner submits a detailed report on property boundaries, the Court is inclined to permit amendments to the plaint to incorporate the findings. Such amendments are justified to reflect the precise measurements, encroachments, or boundary clarifications provided in the report. However, parties retain the right to object, cross-examine the Commissioner, and present counter-evidence. Ultimately, the Court evaluates all evidence, including the Commissioner's report, to arrive at a just decision. This process ensures that property disputes are resolved based on accurate localization and measurement, facilitating fair adjudication.