Telangana High Court
CRP/3189/2023 of Jonna Srinivas Reddy Vs J. Sudha on 29 December 2023
PETITI ON NO: 3'r89 0F 2023 Petition filed Under Article 227 of constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 14-09-2023 lN 1.A.No.555 ot 2O23 in O S'No 1198 of 2f.22 on the file of the CourtofthellAdditionalseniorCivilJudgeatKushaiguda,Medchal.Malkajgiri District. Between: IN THE HIGH
IN THE HIGH COURT [FOR ][THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]' ATHYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY [NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND [AND ][TWENTYTHREE]
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE [SRI ][JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR]
CIVIL RE[VISION ][PETITI][ ON ][NO:][ 3'r89 ][0F ][2023]
Petition filed Under [Article ][227 ][of constitution of ][lndia, aggrieved by the order]dated 14-09-2023 [lN ][1.A.No.555 ][ot ][2O23 ][in ][O ][S'No ][1198 ][of ][2f.22 ][on the ][file ][of ][the]CourtofthellAdditionalseniorCivilJudgeatKushaiguda,Medchal.MalkajgiriDistrict.
Between:
1Jonna Srinivas [Reddy, S/o Buchi ][Reddy, ][Age;.!4. ][yea.rs, ][Occ: Pvt' ][Employ-ee']nyi'.'- f.rl".s7s3, [dirnet ][tr,teoow ][Roao- Knidtrtdale, ][Nc' ][usA-27545]h;r"r;;iUb;his-cFn [i.,oroeiJ.Buchi ][Reddv, ][-s/o ]'t'Nasi [Reddv' Age: ][71];;;;- o;; -Boduppat, [-ft.eio'.empovee, ][nvo. ][H.Nos-51/5, ][Dwarakanasar colonv]HYderabad.nyi'.'- f.rl".s7s3, [dirnet ][tr,teoow ][Roao- Knidtrtdale, ][Nc' ][usA-27545]h;r"r;;iUb;his-cFn [i.,oroeiJ.Buchi ][Reddv, ][-s/o ]'t'Nasi [Reddv' Age: ][71];;;;- o;; -Boduppat, [-ft.eio'.empovee, ][nvo. ][H.Nos-51/5, ][Dwarakanasar colonv]HYderabad.
2KumbamTirumalReddy,s/oKumbam-LingaReddy,.Age:.53^years'Occ:Hil#;;, nvJ. ir"o"ni6bll;, [Eduluru, Kattansur (M), Nalsonda District']Hil#;;, nvJ. ir"o"ni6bll;, [Eduluru, Kattansur (M), Nalsonda District']
...Petitioner/Petitioner
AND
1. J. Sudha, [D/o Y.Ram ][Reddy, ][Age: ][40 ][years, Occ: Employee' ][Ryo' ][1-1- ][- ][.]' \ia'iin,\ipi., ECIL G.R.R;)ddi rl"g,'', R ri oist Predenilv residing at1401'czrlii'?ti,iib"* [cirau Api.ros, ]['lrilonisville ][Nc, ][27560, ][usA']' \ia'iin,\ipi., ECIL G.R.R;)ddi rl"g,'', R ri oist Predenilv residing at1401'czrlii'?ti,iib"* [cirau Api.ros, ]['lrilonisville ][Nc, ][27560, ][usA']
2. Kumbam [Tirumal Reddy, S/o Kumbam Unga ][Redd.y'. ][Age: ][53 y.ears'.Occ:]- iil;i;;;;, R6. eanoenSpatle, Eduluru, Kattangur (M)' Nalgonda District3. " K.Venkat ijiliti;:ii,H"aino'i, [Papi Reddy, S/o K.Linga Reddy' Age: ]chanJra"puri col<inv,L'e [67 ]ruasar, [years' Occ: Advocate' ]Ransa Reddv[Rl/o']District.- iil;i;;;;, R6. eanoenSpatle, Eduluru, Kattangur (M)' Nalgonda District3. " K.Venkat ijiliti;:ii,H"aino'i, [Papi Reddy, S/o K.Linga Reddy' Age: ]chanJra"puri col<inv,L'e [67 ]ruasar, [years' Occ: Advocate' ]Ransa Reddv[Rl/o']District.
...ResPondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be pleased topermit the petitioner and GPA Holder to represent this CRP.No of 2023 on behalfof the [petitioner.]
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the High Court may be pleased to stayall further [proceedings ]in O.S.No.119812022 on the file of the ll Additional SeniorCivil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda pending the disposal ofthe C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. VENUGOPAL JULAKANTI
Counsel for the Respondent l{o.2: Sri. V.M. KRISHNA REDDYThe Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE [T. ][VTNOD ][KUMAR]CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3l89 [of ][2023]
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition [is filed ][aggrieved ][by ][the ][order]dated 14.09.2023 in I.A. [No.555 ]of [2023 ][in ][O.S. ][No.1198 ][of ][2022](Old O.S. No.l36l of 2016) by the II Additional [Senior ][Civil]Judge, at Kushaiguda, Medchal [Malkajgiri District, ][as ][being ][illegal]and contrary to settled principles of [law.]
2. Heard Sri. Venugopal Julakanti, leamed [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Sri V.M.Krishna Reddy, [leamed counsel ][for]2nd respondent, and perused the record
3. The petitioner No. I herein No. I herein I herein herein is the the [[ptaintiff ]][[in ][the ][suit ][filed for]][[the ][suit ][filed for]][[suit ][filed for]][[filed for]]partition, separate possession and consequential injunction. Therespondent No.l herein who is the wife of [the petitioner ]is [the]defendant No.l in the said suit.4. The suit was originally instituted [in ][the ][year ][2016 ][and ][the]respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein had [filed ][their written ]statements [in]2019. While the suit stands [posted ][for ][plaintiffs ]evidence, thepetitioner"[erein had preferred an application under Order VI Rule The petitioner No. I herein No. I herein I herein herein is the the [[ptaintiff ]][[in ][the ][suit ][filed for]][[the ][suit ][filed for]][[suit ][filed for]][[filed for]]
l7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred ro as'the Code') proposing to add the following paragraph in the bodyof the plaint:
"Para No.l0. It is submined that after 2. l2.l 5 when the defendant no. I lelt rhecompany of the plaintifT, the plaintiff requested her to partition the suitscheduled property oralty but she refused. After that without informing theplaintiff the defendant no.l sold the property by appointing delendant no.3 asher GPA holder and executed a sale deed in lavour ol defendant no.2.scheduled property oralty but she refused. After that without informing theplaintiff the defendant no.l sold the property by appointing delendant no.3 asher GPA holder and executed a sale deed in lavour ol defendant no.2.Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued a lefter through his anorney on 4_g_ l6 ropartition the suit schedule property but the defendant no. I bluntly refused.,,partition the suit schedule property but the defendant no. I bluntly refused.,, Along with the above paragraph the following paragraphproposed to be added as 'Cause of Action' in the plaint:
rs
"Cause of Action: The cause of action arose on 2012, the plaintiff and thedefendant no.l planned to purchase the property and translerred the amount inthe name Mr. Naveen Reddy who is the brother of the plaintiff. The land lordsexecuted agreement of sale in favour of Mr. Naveen Reddy. After execution ofagreement of sale, the plaintiff and defendant no.l sent $ 39,g91 frorn 27_3-12to 24-4-12 and executed sale deed in favour of defendanr no.l by N.Ganganmma, P. Sunitha, Anitha Elizebeth vide document no. 1274/2013 dt. 13_l3-13. After that on 2-12-15 when the defendant no_l left the company of theplaintiff and on 4-8-16 when the plaintiff issued a lefter flor distribution ofproperties for which the defendant no.l refused. When prior to issue of letter dt.4-8-14 when the defendant no. I executed registered sale deed in favour ofdefendant no.2 on 3-2-16 by appointing defendant no. 3 as her GpA and whenthe defendant no.3 presented the document before SRO, Uppal and theyregistered the document vide no. 5060/2016 dt.3-2-16.,, The respondent No.2 herein filed his counter opposing the proposed amendments.
The respondent No.2 herein filed his counter opposing the proposed amendments.
5. The Court below after hearing both sides, while dismissingthe said interlocutory application had observed that the only reasongiven by the petitioner herein for not including the cause of actionin the original plaint was due to oversight, and that the same wasinsufficient to allow an amendment after the commencement oftrial. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.6. It is contended by the petitioner that, the contents of theproposed amendments are already forming part of the pleadings ascan be seen from the plaint averments and that failure to include'cause of action' was due to oversight. It is further contended thatif the petitioner is not allowed to carry out the proposedamendments he would be put to ineparable loss.
7. I have taken note of the contentions urged
8. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code stipulates that an applicationfor amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings forthe purpose of deciding the real disputes between the parties.However, the same is subject to the proviso to Rule 17 which castsan obligation on the applicant to show that the application could not have [been preferred before the commencement ][ol ][trial. despite]
exercising [due ][diligence']
pertinent to [refer ][to ][the ][decision]tn
g. At this [stage, ][it ][is]Revaieetu [Builders ][and]
Developers [Vs. ][NaraYanaswamY and]
Sons and [Ors1, ][wherein ][the ][Supreme ][Court ][had ][postulated ][the]important [factors ][to ][consider ][while ][dealing ][with ][an ][apptication ][for]amendment [as ][under:]
TOBET[AKEN]INTOCONSIDERA[TI][ON]WHILE"FA[CTO][RS]DEALING[WITH]APPLICATION[SFO][RAME][ND][MENTS:]67. On [critically ][analyzing ][both ][the ][English ][and Indian ][cases' some ][basic]ir*",rt", [emerge ][which ][ought ][to ][be ][taken into consideration ][while ][allorving ][or]rejecting [the ][application for ][amendment']
(l) whether [the ][amendment ][sought ][is ][imperative ][for ][proper ][and ][effective]adjudication [of ][the ][case?](2) Whether the [application for ][amendment ][is ][bona ][fide or mala ][fide?](3) The amendment [should ][not ][cause ][such ][prejudice ][to the other side ][which]cannot be [compensated adequately in terms ][of ][money;](4) Refusing [amendment ][would ][in ][fact ][lead ][to ][injustice ][or ][lead ][to ][multiple]litigation;(5) Whether the [proposed amendment ][constitutionalty ][or ][fundamentally ][changes]the nature [and character ][of ][the ][case? ][and](6) As a [general ][rule, ][the ][court should decline ][amendments ][if ][a fresh suit on ][the]amended [claims ][would ][be ][barred ][by ][limitation ][on ][the ][date ][of ][application']68.Thesearesomeoftheimportantfactorswhichmaybekeptinmindwhiledealing [with ][application ][ftted ][under ][Order ][VI ][Rule ][l ][T ][These ][are ][only]illustrative [and ][not exhaustive.]
'(zoog)rosccaa
70. We can conclude our [discussion ][by ][observing ][that while ][deciding]applications for amendments [the courts must ][not ][refuse bona ][fide, ][legitimate,]honest and necessary amendments [and should never ][permit mala fide, ][worthless]and/or d ishonest amendments."
10. At the outset it is to be [seen ][that ][by ][the proposed amendment]the petitioner herein is only [seeking ][to ][add ][the ][cause ][of ][action]paragraph which would clearly [state ][the ][date ][from ][which ][the]sue had accrued. [Further, ][the ][contents ][of ][the]petitioner's right to said paragraphs have specifically [been ][pleaded ][in ][para ][5 of ][the]plaint. Therefore, this Court is of [the view that no new ][case ][is]being introduced by the [petitioner.]
I 1. However, considering [that ][the ][petitioner herein ][had ][stated]'oversight' as the reason [for ][cause ][of ][delay and ][further ][considering]thatthe suit is at the stage of [plaintiff ][evidence, ][this ][Court ][is ][of ][the]view the prejudice caused to the [respondents ][herein ][by ][virtue ][of]allowing the present amendment [can be ][compensated ][with ][costs.]
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision [Petition partly allowed. ][The]order dated 14.09.2023 [in ][I.A. ][No.555 ][of ][2023 ][in ][O.S. No. ][I 198 ][of]2022 (Old O.S. No.1361 of [2016) ][by ][the ][II ][Additional ][Senior ][Civil]Judge, at Kushaiguda, [Medchal ][Malkajgiri District is ][set ]- [aside]
I
subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the respondentsherein.herein.
13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any sha[stand closed SD/- MOHD. ISMAILASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
v,
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The ll Additional [senior ][civil ][Judge ][at ][Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District]
z. One CC to [SRl. VENUGOPAL JULAKANTI Advocate IOPUCI]
3. One CC to [SRl. V.M. KRISHNA ][REDDY, ][Advocate [OPUC]]
4. Two CD [CoPies]PSRNS$<,
HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
ORDER
CRP.No.3189 of 2023
HE [ST4]koO0 B Fi! 2024* <?rr. -.,ta'*
ALLOWING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION.
AL