CRP/778/2010 of Arasavalli Tejaswari Vs Arasavalli Gopala Rao on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated29.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.586 of 2009 in O.S.No.214 of 2008 on thefile of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. She filed O.S.No.214 of2008 against the respondent, who is none other than her father, for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- towards expenses for her marriage. Duringthe pendency of the suit, the petitioner’s marriage was performed. Therefore, she has filed the above noted I.A. for amendment of theplaint by inserting the necessary pleadings pertaining to performanceof marriage and incurring of expenditure. She has also sought foramendment to the extent of quantum of amount to be recovered fromthe respondent by substituting the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- originallyclaimed with Rs.2,50,000/-. This application was dismissed by the learnedAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, on the grounds that thepetitioner failed to place any material in support of the avermentsrelating to the amendment, that the amendment will certainly changethe cause of action and that the nature of the suit will also be changed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that thereasons on which the petitioner’s application has been rejected are notsound in law. In view of the subsequent event of the marriage of thepetitioner, she has filed the application for amendment. Law does notprohibit such amendment based on a fresh cause of action. Indeedpermitting such amendment avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

As regards the observation of the Court below that no materialwas placed in support of the petitioner’s averments, the absence ofmaterial at the stage of application for amendment is wholly irrelevantas the petitioner fails or succeeds on the basis of the evidence thatmay be adduced by her during the trial after amendment is ordered. Therefore, the said reason is not germane for consideration of theapplication for amendment. With regard to the reason that theamendment will change the nature of the suit, the same is equallyunsound because by raising the pleas pertaining to the subsequentevents and enhancing the claim from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-,the nature of the suit will not undergo any change as the relief of recovery of money being the nature of the suit, the same remainsnotwithstanding the amendment.

For the aforementioned reasons, the order under revision dated29.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.586 of 2009 in O.S.No.214 of 2008 on thefile of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, is setaside.

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.

As a sequel to disposal of the revision, C.R.P.M.P.No.1097 of2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.

________________________

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

31[st] December, 2010Note: L.R. copies to be marked.(B/o)GHN