Telangana High Court
CRP/1336/2011 of Srungarapu Venkat Lakshmi Bhavani Vs Chellubiona Tulasimangatayaru on 30 December 2011
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1336 OF 2011 . DATED 30th DECEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Srungarapu Venkat Lakshmi Bhavani …Petitioner And Chellubiona Tulasimangatayaru ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1336 OF 2011. ORDER:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1336 OF 2011 .
DATED 30[th] DECEMBER, 2011
BETWEEN
Srungarapu Venkat Lakshmi Bhavani
…Petitioner
And
Chellubiona Tulasimangatayaru
….Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1336 OF 2011.
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 16.3.2011 passed bythe learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at PalkoI, West Godavari District dismissingI.A.No. 886 of 2009 in O.S.No. 404 of 2005 filed by the petitioner/defendant for amendmentof the written statement.
The respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendantfor recovery of the amount due under the promissory note dated 9.9.2003. The revisionpetitioner/defendant is contesting the said suit and in the process, she filed her writtenstatement. After closure of the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, the suit is posted forthe evidence of the petitioner/defendant. At this stage, the revision petitioner/defendantfiled the impugned petition seeking amendment of the written statement. The Court belowdismissed the same. Hence this CRP.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submitted that since thepetitioner/defendant had not pleaded any conflicting or inconsistent pleadings in theproposed amendment the Court below ought to have allowed the impugned petition. Hefurther submitted that due to oversight she (revision petitioner) had not mentioned theproposed amendment in the written statement and that even if the proposed amendment isallowed no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in as much as no newcause of action arises.
Opposing the revision petition, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiffsubmitted that since the impugned application was filed belatedly, the Court below relyingon the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rightly dismissed the same. He submitted that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below and sought fordismissal of the revision petition.
Perused the case file.
I see some force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Aperusal of the proposed amendment sought to be brought on record would not cause anyprejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. Since the respondent/plaintiff had wrongly shown theprofession of the revision petitioner/defendant as business, she is seeking to show that herprofession is agriculture and in support of the same, she furnished the details of the extentof land owned by her and also as to how she succeeded to the same. She also pleadedthat in the event of the Court below comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to adecree as prayed for, the interest has to be scaled down to12% per annum. The saidproposed amendment does not give raise to any new cause of action in the matter.However, the aspects as to whether the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) AgriculturistsRelief Act, 1938 (Act of IV of 1938) is applicable to the facts of the case and Whether therespondent/plaintiff is entitled to interest at 24% per annum in the event the plaintiffsucceeds in the suit would be decided on the merits of the lis and after going through thematerial on record.
In the case relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent in Narney Estates (P)Ltd Vs. N.Gopal Naidu {2011(5) ALD 445} a learned Single Judge of this Court confirmedthe finding of the Court below in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint on theground that the same was wholly belated and that the petitioner therein failed to plead andprove due diligence as envisaged under the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. In the caseon hand the petitioner herein is a small agriculturist and due to oversight she could notmention the proposed amendment in the written statement earlier filed. Further thetechnicalities of law should not come in the way of the Courts in the administration ofjustice between the parties. It is therefore always advisable and desirable to decide thematter on merits rather than on the grounds of technicalities ,delays and laches.
For the foregoing discussion, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.Accordingly the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,at PalkoI, West Godavari District in I.A.No. 886 of 2009 in O.S.No. 404 of 2005 is set aside.As a sequel thereto, IA.No. 886 of 2009 in OS.No. 404 of 2005 shall stand allowed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
--------------------------------------
JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA