Telangana High Court
CRP/1297/2014 of PASALADI NARAYANA (DIED) PER LRS 7 OTHERS Vs DR.P.MAHADEVRAJ on 31 December 2021
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1297 OF 2014 Between: '1. Pasaladi Narayana (dled) perLRs Pasaladi Shakunthala, Wo, late p.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1297 OF 2014
Petition under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated2510212014 in lA No.377l20'13 in OS No.76/201 ['l ]on the file of the Court of the iltAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal.2510212014 in lA No.377l20'13 in OS No.76/201 ['l ]on the file of the Court of the iltAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal.
Between:
'1. Pasaladi Narayana (dled) perLRs
2Pasaladi Shakunthala, Wo, late p. Narayana,Age 70 years, Occ: House wife, Rio. H.No. 3-2-637/i,Kachiguda, HyderabadAge 70 years, Occ: House wife, Rio. H.No. 3-2-637/i,Kachiguda, HyderabadPasaladi l\rlallikarjuna Raju, S/o..late p. NarayanaAge 52 years, Occ: Govt. employee,R/0, H. No. 3-2-637 I l,Kachiguda, HvderabadAge 52 years, Occ: Govt. employee,R/0, H. No. 3-2-637 I l,Kachiguda, Hvderabad4Pasaladi Ramana Raju, S/o late p. NarayanaAge 46 years, Occ: Business,Age 46 years, Occ: Business,R/o, H,No, 4-2/2, Pushpa Nursing Flome,Opp: New Bus Stand, Near Wator l'ank,Ieeja village, Ma habubnagar DistrictOpp: New Bus Stand, Near Wator l'ank,Ieeja village, Ma habubnagar District5Pasaladi Basava Raju, S/o. late p. NarayanaAge 39 years, Occ: Business,R/o. H.No. 14-145, Near Nadi Majeed,Neelakanteswara Swamy Street, leeja village,Mahabubnagar District.Age 39 years, Occ: Business,R/o. H.No. 14-145, Near Nadi Majeed,Neelakanteswara Swamy Street, leeja village,Mahabubnagar District.0Pasaladi Sabitha Wo. lr/achani Shiva Shankar,(D/o. late P. Narayana), age 4S years, Occ: Govt. employee,R/o, H.No, 3-2-637/1, 2nd floor, Kachiguda,Hyde/abad(D/o. late P. Narayana), age 4S years, Occ: Govt. employee,R/o, H.No, 3-2-637/1, 2nd floor, Kachiguda,Hyde/abad7Pasaladi Kalyani, Wo. Agnoor Ganesh,(D/o. late P. Narayana), age 43 years, Occ: Govt. employee,R/o. H.No. 3-2-63711 ,2nd floor, Kachiguda,HyderabadIJalaja \rlasan, W/o. Shrikant lVasan,(D/o. late P. Narayana), age 43 years, Occ: Govt. employee,R/o. H.No. 3-2-63711 ,2nd floor, Kachiguda,HyderabadIJalaja \rlasan, W/o. Shrikant lVasan,(D/o. lale P. Narayana), age 37 years,Occ: House wife, R/0. H.No, 16-2-741/13/10,/Asman Gadh, Near TV Tower, Ir/lalakpet, Hyderabad /Asman Gadh, Near TV Tower, Ir/lalakpet, Hyderabad , .. Revision Petitioners/ Respond ents/p Iaintiffs
AND
/'--n)
/'--n) l/ [td]
I
I
l
)
4
Dr. P. Mahadevraj, S/c p. Ganganna,Age 60 years, Occ: Ag jculture, R/o, H.No. 14_146,leeja village & Mandal, IMahabubnagar DistrictAge 60 years, Occ: Ag jculture, R/o, H.No. 14_146,leeja village & Mandal, IMahabubnagar District . . . . RespondenVpetitione r/Defend a nt CRPMP. NO: 1802 OF 2014
Petition under S )ction 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed ther -.with, the High Court may be pleased to stay all furtherproceedings in O.S.Nr .76 oI 2011 on the file of lll Additional District & SessionsJudge, Gadwal, Mahab :bnagar.
For the Petitioners : S ll M.ACHUTA REDDY, Advocate Forthe Respondent N >.1 : SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN, Advocate (Not Present)
The Court made the foll >wing: ORDER
I
THE HON'BLE SRI.IT]STICE A. [VENKATESHWARA ][REDDY]CIIP No.1297 of 20lel
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:
l. The revision petitioners/respondents/plaintiffs [have ][filed ][this]Civil Revision Petition under Article [227 ]ol [the ][Constitution ][of ][India,]assailing tl.re order dated 25.02.2014 in [IA ][No.377 ][of ][2013 in ][Original]Suit No.76 of 20ll on the file of the [learned ]III [A.dditional ][District]and Sessions Judge, Gadrvai.
2The plainiiffs have flled the Original Suit No.76 of [201 ][1 ][for]panition and sepalate possession of the suit schedule propefties. Thedefendant has flled his written statemeni on 09.04.2012. [After ][framing]the issues, trial commenced on I [I ].06.2012, [when ]the [evidence]affidavit of PW. 1 was filed. later cross-examination [was ][completed,]through Advocate Comr.t.tissioner on 25.01.2013. [l'hereafter, ][on ][behalf]of the plaintiffs, PV/.2, rvho is the son of PW.l/first [plaintiff ][was]exarrined in \Iarch, 201 3 and plaintift's' evidence, [was repofied ][as]'closed'. Afier closing the plaintilf s evidence, on behalf of [the]det'endant, evidence alfldavit o1' llW. i rvas flled. l{e [has ][also]examined his brother-ir.r-law as DW.2 anC [the ][defendant's ][evidence]was also closed ar-rd the matter was being adjourned [lor ][arguments.]
3. At that slage, the present application in lA No.377 of [2013]under Order-VI, Rule- I 7 CPC was filed by [the ][defendant for]arnendment of the pleadings by incorporating [para-l1 ][(d) ][and ][(e),]
certair [additional properlies in ][his ][written ][statement after ][para-]adding 1 I (c). It is [illeged ][by the ][petitioner/dei-endant ][that the plaintilT ][has]not covered 'he [properties ][t-allen ][to ][his ][share ][during the ][course ][of]partition and re [was unable ][to give ][proper ][instructions ][to ][his ][counsel]at the time [o ]i filing [the ][written ][statement ][due ][to ][oversight ][and ][the]proposed am( ndment [is ][very much ][essential ][in ][the ][witten ][statement']otherwise the [defendant ][would suffer ][irreparable ][loss ][and ][injury']
4. Heardlearnedcounselfortherevisionpetitioners/plaintift-s.There is no ['epresentation ][for ][the ][respondent/defendant, ][though ][Sri]ShafathAhnedKhan,advocatehasflledVakalatandheremainedabsent witho, [t ][any representalion.]
5. Admiledly, the dettndant [has ][filed ][IA ][No'377 ][ol ][2013 ][under]Rr [le-17 ][CPC ][after ][closure ][of ][the evidence ][on ][both ][sides']Order-VI, The defenda tt [has ][not ][taken ][any ][such ][plea ][with ][reference ][to ][the]properties t rat are [mentioned ][in ][para-4 ][of ][his ][affidavit ][for]incorporatinl the [same ][as para- I 1 ][(d) ][and ][(e) ][of his u'ritten ][statement]either in his criginal [written ][statement ][or in ][the cross-examination ][of]PW.l or in his [evidence ][as ][DW.l or in ][the ][evidence ][of ][DW'2']Though he h ts mentioned [in ][his ][affidavit ][that ][he ][could not give ][proper]instructions o his [counsel ][and ][that the ][plaintitfs ][have ][not ][covered ][the]properties fi llen to his [share ][in ][the ][course ][of ][partition, ][I ][do not ][find]tion in [the ][plea ][of ][the ][def-endant, ][as ][he- ][rvas ][not at ][all]any [justifict ]diligent in n [ak ]ing [such ]Plea.
k_
6. The leamed counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs alsorelied on the following decisions:
i) Vidyabai and others v. Potlmolutho and otherst;
ii) Pandit Malhari Maltale v. Monika Pandit Mahaleand othersl:and othersl:
iii) S. Molla Reddy v, Future Builders Co-operaliveHousing Sociel' ond olhersii andHousing Sociel' ond olhersii and
iv) Ayesha Rizwana v, Mushtoq Ahnrerl [.]
7. I have caretully perused the principles laid in the abovedecisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Viclyahai's case [( ]1 supra)has held that it is the primary duty of the Court to decide as to whethersuch an arnendment is necessary to decide the real dispute betweenthe parlies and only if such condition is tulfilled, the amendment [is ][to]be allowed. However, the proviso appended to Order-VI, [Rule- ][17]CPC restricts the power of the Court. It puts an embargo [on ][exercise]of its [jurisdiction. ]The Cou('s [jurisdiction ]in the cases of this [nature]is limited. Thus. unless the .jurisdictional fact as envisaged therein [is]found to be existing. the Court will have no [jurisdiction ]at all to allowthe anrendrnent of thc plaint
8. Thus, under tl.re proviso ol Order-VI, Rule- [I ]7 CPC,ltolbr amendnrcnt shall be allo*'ed after [the ][trial ][is]application commenced, unless in spite ol due diligence the matter could [not ][be]
TAir{ :oos sc r+s:
2 (uo:o) rr scc s,rs3 :ot: 1ay Al.,D 40 (sc)'zor: [(o) ][elo ][rrs]3 :ot: 1ay Al.,D 40 (sc)'zor: [(o) ][elo ][rrs]
raised before [sommencement ][of ][trial. ][ln ][the ][present case. ][except]making a bal I [statement, ][in his ][affidavit at ][parc-4 ][' ][the ][def'endant ][has]not stated h tw he [could ][not ][mention ][the ][details ][in ][his ][written]statement.
g. As sta'ed above, [after ][filing ][the ][written ][statement, ][issues settled,]evidence let [n on ][both ][sides qnd ][the ][application in ][IA ][No ][377 ][of2013]was only file I after [closure ][of ][the det-endant's evidc'nce and ][there ][is no]iota ol evidrnce [ro ][shorv rhar ][the ][det'endant ][uas diligent ][anci ][that]despite due diligence. [he ][could ][not ][raise ][any' ][such ][issue ][befbre]settlement o'issues [or ][belbre conclusion ][ol ][the ][trial. ][-l)rus, ][no ][such]finding is re:orded by [the ][Coun ][belou' that ][in ][spite ][of ][due ][diligence,]the detbnda rt could [not ][introduce ][the ][proposed amendment ][before]commencen ent of [the ][trial ][or ][at least ][befbre ][conclusion ][of ][the ][trial' ][In]that view c f the [matter, ][the ][impugned ][order ][of ][the ][trial ][Court ][is]unsustainab [e.]
10. In tht result, the Civil [Revision Petition ][is ][allowed ][setting ][aside]the impugn:d order dated [25.02.2014 ][in ][IA ][No.377 ][of ][2013 ][in ][OS]No.76 of 2l [r1l ]on the [flle of ][the ][tll ][Additional District ][and ][Sessions]Judge, Cad val. Considering [the ][f'act ][that the ][Original ][Suit ][was ][flled]in the year 2011 for [partition and ][separate possession ][of ][the ][suit]schedule pr rperlies and the [evidence on ][both ][sides ][concltrded and ][it ][is]only pendir rg lor argurtents, [the ][learr-red ][trial ][Judge ][shall ][dispose ][of]the Origin: I Suit [within ][three months ][tiorn ][the ][date ][of ][receipt ][of ][a]
\
A VRJCRP No. 1297 of 2014
copy of this order. Both the pafties shall cooperate with the trialCourt for expeditious disposal of the Original Suit, as directed. In thecircumstances ofthe case, thele shall be no order as to costs.
I l. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this revision petilion shall stand c losed.
Sd/-K.SAILESHIASSISTANT REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER
To1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.1. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District.
(with records, if any)
2. One CC to Sri I\/.Achutha Reddy, Advocate [(OPUC)]
3. One CC to Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, Advocate [(OPUC)]4. Two CD Copies5. One Spare CopyKj.
.\\\>.
HIGH COURT
DATED:3111212021
ORDERCRP.No.1297 of 2014
ALLOWING THE CRP VITHOUT COSTS.
a,/xro
0 i [rEa ][E?2]