Telangana High Court
CRP/3103/2014 of MOKA NAGARAJU Vs SREERAMA CHIDHAMBARAPPA SETTE AND 3 OTHERS on 28 December 2017
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3103 OF 2014 ORDER: Heard both sides and perused the grounds of Revision and the impugned order of the lower Court. Undisputedly, in the Suit based on pronote said to have been executed by M/s. Sree Sreerama Chidhamabarappa Setty and sons,
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.3103 OF 2014
ORDER:
Heard both sides and perused the grounds of Revision and the impugned order of the lower Court.
Undisputedly, in the Suit based on pronote said to have been executed by M/s. Sree Sreerama Chidhamabarappa Setty and sons, Dharmavaram, and cheque also issued as a consideration for the said pronote in filing the suit for its recovery, the cheque bearing No.198621 on even date of pronote dated 10.09.1994 is also mentioned. It is the case of the plaintiff in seeking amendment in the cause title in mentioning the name of the 1[st] defendant of a mistaken omission in mentioning the word ‘Sree’ before the words ‘Sreerama’ to read instead of Sreerama Chidhambarappa Setty and sons as Sree Sreerama Chidhambarappa Setty and sons.
The contest in opposing the petition is that Sree Sreerama Chidhambarappa Setty and sons and Sreerama Chidhambarappa Setty and sons are different persons and the plaintiff wants to bring a new defendant entirely and the suit claim is barred by limitation and the amendment cannot be allowed. In fact, a typographical mistake in the name can be allowed at any stage. It is not even the case that the defendants, after receiving of summons, filed simply a memo saying they are not and not received the consideration under the pronote covered by the cheque. Once such is the case, a mistake in the mention of the name in not adding the word ‘Sree’ will not make a mountain of the molehill to raise all the contest by the defendants in opposing to amend the cause title in the plaint, short and long and, wherever it occurred.
Having regard to the above, the dismissal of the application by the impugned order of the lower Court dated 09.12.2013 in I.A. No.390 of 2006 is unsustainable and set-aside. However, it will not prejudice the right of the defendants, if necessary, to file additional written statement and contest the suit, including on any so called bar of limitation, as per the settled law vide C.R.P. No.1751 of 2016 and batch.
Accordingly, with the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. 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
51
06012018
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3103 OF 2014
DSH
Date. 28.12.2017