Telangana High Court
CRP/1896/2014 of NIDUMOLU VENKATA SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO Vs MANDAVA KRISHNAVENI AND ANOTHER on 28 December 2017
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1896 OF 2014 ORDER: Heard both sides and perused the impugned dismissal order of the additional written statement sought to be received by the defendant in I.A. No.149 of 2014 in pending suit in O.S. No.67 of 2006, dated 10.06.2014 and also the
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.
Conclusion
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1896 OF 2014
ORDER:
Heard both sides and perused the impugned dismissal order of the additional written statement sought to be received by the defendant in I.A. No.149 of 2014 in pending suit in O.S. No.67 of 2006, dated 10.06.2014 and also the grounds of Revision.
The application filed is under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. mainly meant to file the additional pleading to the set-off or counterclaim to the written statement and not otherwise. Any application is practically to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. including for amendment of a written statement to incorporate any additional paragraphs in the written statement even. No doubt, mere wrong quoting of a provision is not fatal to consider the application as one under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. However, for that in the petition but for simply mentioning to read to receive the additional written statement, the proposed amendment not asked for, even what is from the reading indicates is a subsequent event. Once the subsequent event is to be brought to the notice of the Court, it can be even in the evidence by mentioning the facts happened in claiming any non-entitlement to the relief of specific performance by the plaintiff in the main suit as part of defence; thereby, there is nothing more to interfere with the impugned order but for with that observation in disposal of the Revision.
Accordingly, with this observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Revision shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date: 28.12.2017. Dsh HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
53
04012018
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1896 OF 2014
DSH
Date. 28.12.2017