Telangana High Court
CRP/3497/2023 of Sri K. Praveen Kumar, Vs Sri K.Shyam Prasad, on 29 December 2023
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3497 OF 2023 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to set aside the order dated:
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3497 OF 2023
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to set aside theorder dated: 0411012023 passed in 1.A.N0.85 OF 2022 lN O.S.No.1169 OF 2022,on the file of the I Additional District Judge Medchal-Malkajgiri District atKushaiguda.Between:Sri K- Praveen Kumar, S/o. Late K.Satyam @ K.Satyanarayana, Age. 42 [years, ]Occ.Pvt. Employee, Rl/o. H. No.50/32, Raghavan colony Main Road, Vadapalani, Chennai)presently residing at C/o.Kukkaduvvu Srinivasa Mudiraj, Vanniguda Village, Keesaralvlandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.
...PETlTlONERYDefendant No.1.
AND
1. Sri K.Shyam Prasad, S/o. Late K.Satyam @ K.Satyanarayana, Age. 44 years,Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o.Swaroop Nagar Colony, Uppal, Ranga ReddyDistrict.2. Sri R. Ponnivalavan, S/o.R.tvlS. Ramachandran, Age.46 years, Occ.Politician, (The Respondents no.2 to 6 /Defendant No.2 to 6 areR/o.H.No.50/32, Raghavan Colony, lvlain Road, Vadapalani, Chennai)3- Smt K. Maheshwari, D/o. K- Krishan, Age. 39 years, Occ. Business, (TheRespondents no.2 to 6 /Defendant No.2 to 6 are Ryo.H.No.50/32, RaghavanColony, I\4ain Road, Vadapalani, Chennai)4. Sri Abu Bakar, S/o.Not Known to the petitioner, Age. 56 years, Occ. Business,(The Respondents no.2 to 6 /Defendant No.2 to 6 are Ryo.H.No.50/32,Raghavan Colony, lVlain Road, Vadapalani, Chennai)5. Sri K. Shanmugam, S/o.K.Karuppaiah, Age_ 44 years, Occ. Private Job, (The Respondents no.2 to 6 /Defendant No.2 to 6 are Rl/o.H.No.50/32,Raghavan Colony, Marn Road, Vadapalani, Chennai) (TheRespondents/Defendants No.2 to 6 are not necessary parties to this petition)
...RESPONDENTS
'.. [. ][i'j ][_.;, ":,:i]$]wffi
,+?jHiiiir''..4:2lA NO: 1 OF 2023',..:tlf'!.Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ][that in the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High Court may be ][pleased to]Stay the O.S.No.'1 169 of 2022, on the [file ][of ][the ][I ][Additional District ][Judge]Ivledchal-li/alkajgiri District at Kushaiguda by [pending ][disposal of the ][CRP.]Counsel for the Petitioner [: ]SRl. [K ][BUCHI ][BABU, ][ADVOCATE]Counsel for the Respondents: None [Appeared]The Court made the following: ORDER'. [, ][-, ][..i]" .t- :l;i:.ff1?-, i..r.e.&! [']
:. i.ir::,? .'1*i'l' I
,ffi
SRI [JUSTICE T. ][VINOD ][KUMAR]THI, I{ON'BLE
CIVIL RE,VISIO[N PE,TITION][ No.][ 3497 ][of2023]
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
1. 'I'his Civil Revision Petition is fited aggrieved by the orderdated 04.10.2023 [in ][l.A. ][No. ][85 ][ol ][2022 ][in ][O S' ][No'1169 ][of ][2022](Old. O.S.No. 465 of [2016) ][by ][the ][I ][Additional ][Distlict ][Judge' ][at]Medchal [Malkajgiri District, ][as ][being illegal ][and]Malkajgiri, contrary to settled [principles ][of ][law.]
2. Heard Sri. K. Buchi [Babu, ][learned ][counsel ][lbr ][the ][petitioner,]and perused the record.
The respondent respondent No. I I [[herein ][is the ][plaintiff ]][[is the ][plaintiff ]][[plaintiff ]][[in ][the ][suit ][filed]][[the ][suit ][filed]][[suit ][filed]][[filed]]
3. The respondent respondent No. I I [[herein ][is the ][plaintiff ]][[is the ][plaintiff ]][[plaintiff ]][[in ][the ][suit ][filed]][[the ][suit ][filed]][[suit ][filed]][[filed]]for partition, separate [possession and ][consequential ][injunction ][The]petitionel hcrein is the Defendant [No ][l ][in ][the ][said ][suit']
The suit was originally suit was originally was originally originally [[instituted ]][[in ][the year ][201 ][6 ][The]][[the year ][201 ][6 ][The]][[201 ][6 ][The]][[6 ][The]][[The]]
4. The suit was originally suit was originally was originally originally [[instituted ]][[in ][the year ][201 ][6 ][The]][[the year ][201 ][6 ][The]][[201 ][6 ][The]][[6 ][The]][[The]]petitioner herein had [f ][rled ][h ][is ][written ][statement ][before the ][Trial]Court. At tl.rc stage [ol- ][plaintills ][turthcr ][evidence, ][the ][Respondent]No.1 herein had [pleferred ][an ][application ][undet Order ][VI ][Rule ][17 ][of]the Code ol Civil Procedure, [1908 ][(hereinafter referred ][to ][as ]['the]
Code') proposing to add the lollor.r,ing paragr.aphs in the body of the plaint:
"Para No.l(a). [t is submined thc dcf'cndant No. 2 to 6 rvlro arc rlrc ter]ants onthe sLril schcdulcd propcrq, C arc jLrst and necessarl parries r,r tl)e suit andthe sLril schcdulcd propcrq, C arc jLrst and necessarl parries r,r tl)e suit andthey arc inrPleaded by ordcrs passcd in I.A No. r4g/20r6 crt: r1 08-10lg bv theHorr'blc [( ],,'rn [']Horr'blc [( ],,'rn [']
Along with the above paragraph the follorvine prayer is proposed to be addcd after prayer No.B in the plair.rr:
"Praver No. C: Dircct lhe dcfcrrdarrt lo.l to pay 50% of thc anr()unt to theplaiutiff lrorn r.hc total corlectcd rcntar amol.'rts from the def'cndarrts no. 2 to 6from thc srrit scheduled properry -C from the rnonth of.lanuarr 2016 to tillrealization ol' thc suit.,'
The petitioncr herein filed his counter opposing the proposed amendmen ts.
5. The Court below after hcaring both sides, had observed thatsince the defendants No.l to 6 r.r,ere impleaded during thependency of the suit vlde or.ders in I.A. No. 34g ol- 2016 dated14.08.2018, disallowing tlie proposed amendment would defeat thepurpose of irnpleading the said dcfendants. On makirrg the saidobservations the Courl belorv allowed the application. Aggrievedby the same the pr.esent revision is prcfen.ed.
w
6. It is contended by the [petitioner ][that, the ][court below ][erred ][in]allowing the proposed amendments [after ][lour (4) ][years ][from ][the]date of allowing the application [impleading ][defendant ][No'2 ][to ][6 in]the suit, more so when [the ][respondent ][No. ][t ][herein had failed ][to]show sufficient cause [for ][the ][delay. ][It ][is ][further ][contended that the]Court below erred in [allowing ][the ][proposed amendment since no]supporling documents [proving ][the quantum ][of ][rent ][and ][calculations]were filed by the respondent [No.1.]
7. I have taken note of their respective [contentions.]
8. Order VI Itule 17 of the Code [stipulates that ][an ][application]for amendment can be allowed [at ][any ][stage ][of ][the ][proceedings ][for]the purpose of deciding the [real ][disputes between ][the ][parties']However, the same is subject to [the ][proviso to ][Rule ][l7 ][which ][casts]an obligation on the applicant [to ][show that ][the application ][could]not have been preferred belore the [commencement ][of ][trial ][despite]exercising due diligence.
9. At this stage,, it is [pertinent ]to [refer ][to ][the ][decision ][in]Revajeetu Builders and Developers [Vs. ][Nnraynnaswamy and]
Sons and Or.s/, whereir-r thc Suprente Courl hac.l postulated theimportant factors to consider while dealing rvith an application loramendment as under:
*FACTORS TO BET'AKEN INTOCONSI I)EIT,\I'IONWHILEDEALING WITII APPI,ICA'I'IONS }.OR AMENDMEN't'S:
67. On critically analyzing borh the Ilrglish and Indiarr cascs. sontc basicprinciples cmerge which ought to be taken illto consideration rvhile tllorving orrejecting the application for antendment.
(l) Whether the amendment sou.qht is inrperativc lbr propcr anrj clfectiveadjudrcarion of the case?adjudrcarion of the case?
(2) Whcthcr the application tor amendrncnt is bona fidc or nrala lldc.,
(3) The anrcndntent should not cause sLrch pre;udicc lo thc othcr \idc \. lticll cannot bc compensated adequatelY in tcrlrrs of rnoncy;
(4) Relusing amendmcnt u,ould in lact lcad to iniustrcc or lcad to mLrltiplclitigation;litigation;
(5) Whether the proposed anrendmcnt constitutronally or lirndanrcntrllv chanqcsthe nature and character of the casc? andthe nature and character of the casc? and
(6) As a gcneral rule, thc coun should dcclilc ancndrrenrs il a trcsh iurt on theamended claims would bc barred by lintitatron on the datc ol'applicatiIn.amended claims would bc barred by lintitatron on the datc ol'applicatiIn.
68. These are sonle ofthe imporlarrt lactors rvhich nray bc kepr irr rrrrnd whilcdealing u,ith application filed undcr Ordcr VI I{ule 17. Ilrcsc are onlvillustrative and not exhaustive.
70. We can conclude our discussion bv observins that \\,h lc (lecidingapplications for arnendrnents the courts nrust not refusc borlr lld... Icgitimatc,honest and neccssary amendments and should ncver pcnnil rnala lirlc. wo(hlessand/or dishonest amendments.,, 'lzoosltosccsa \
10. At the outset it is to be seen that [the application ][seeks ][to]carry out consequential amendments [which ][have ][arisen ][on ][account]of the Court below allowing I.A.No. [348 ][of ][2O16 ][vide ][order ][dated]14.08.2016 impleading delendants No.2 to [4 in ]the suit. It [is not ][the]case of the petitioner that he had challenged the order [dated]14.08.2016. Therefore, having accepted the [order impleading ][the]defendants No.2 to 6 in the suit, the [petitioner ][herein cannot ][be]permitted to contend that consequential amendments ought not beallowed.
11. Furlher, though the petitioner herein had contended [that ][the]proposed prayer No. C cannot be allowed in the absence of filingsupporling documents proving the quantum of rent, the samecannot be accepted as it is a question which has to be decided [after]conducting a regular tria[.
12. However, considering that the respondent No.l herein [had]stated oversight as the reason for cause of delay and [further]considering that the suit is at the stage of lurther evidence [of ][the]respondent No.l herein, this Cor"rrt is of the vieu' [the ][prejudice]
I
II
caused to the petitioner herein by virtue of allowing the presentamendment can bc compensated with costs.
13. Accordingly, rhe Civil Revision petition partly allorved..l-he
order dated 04.10.2023 in LA. No. 85 ol-2022 in O.S No.l169 of2022 (Old. O.S.No. 465 of 2016) by the I Additional DistrictJudge, at Malkajgiri, Medchal Mall<ajgiri District is nrodifiecl; therespondent No.1 herein is perrnitted to carry out thc necessaryamcndments sub.ject to payment of Rs.10,000/_ as costs to therespondent hcrein.respondent No.1 herein is perrnitted to carry out thc necessaryamcndments sub.ject to payment of Rs.10,000/_ as costs to therespondent hcrein.
14. Consequently, miscellaneous 1;etitions pending if any shallstand closed.
Sd/-Mohd.lsmail
ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR ][i;:]
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
t. I Additional [District Judge ][Medchal-Malkajgiri ][District ][at ][Kushaiguda]
2. One cc to [sRl. ][K ][BUCHI ][BABU Advocate ][[oPUC]]
3. Two CD [coPies.]
cvk
0'\P
t:
/
..--: i : -iAr:cfrg'?.,illi?;' r:il':::'!.j,I.: 1: .
HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
ORDER
CRP.No.3497 of 2023
CRP is Partly Allowed.
Or*q.S
tI,:-'ll-.. ..'affi:.{ti.rA't:iltt ii,lB2w4t*DCSPATcHeO.iii':q.,iffii,l:,I'.1*.!,t.+)iffi':it'1