CRP/4631/2015 of Alla Sreenivasa Rao, Vs Alla Veeramani, on 30 December 2015

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner/2[nd] defendant and Sri N.V. Ananthakrishna, learned counselappearing for respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs, in both the revisionpetitions.

2. CRP No.4631 of 2015 is filed against the order dated30.09.2015 passed in IA No.1152 of 2015 in OS No.167 of 2008,wherein the petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein/plaintiffs underOrder VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint, was allowed. Whereas,CRP No.4613 of 2015 is filed against the order dated 30.09.2015passed in IA No.1153 of 2015 in OS No.167 of 2008, wherein thepetition filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein/ plaintiffs under Order VIIrule 14(4) CPC to condone the delay in filing certain documents, wasallowed.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 herein/plaintiffs instituted the suit forpartition of the plaint schedule property. In the course of trial before thecourt below, both parties let in their evidence and the matter wasposted for arguments. At that juncture, respondents 1 to 3 herein/plaintiffs, filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to include certainproperties to the plaint schedule, which according to them, are alsosubject matter of the partition. The said petition was opposed by therevision petitioner herein contending that earlier basing on thecontentions raised by the defendants about the non-joinder ofnecessary parties, the plaintiffs filed an amendment petition to bring onrecord some persons, the same was allowed, again at the stage ofarguments, they filed the present petition seeking to add some moreproperties to the plaint schedule and such a course cannot be permitted in law.

4. It seems that in the cross-examination of DW.1, it was spokento by the said witness that under a gift deed, the grand father of theplaintiffs gifted some properties to their grand mother and that theirgrand father also purchased some more properties with the joint fundsin the name of the 2[nd] defendant. Basing on the said evidence, theplaintiffs filed petition to include those properties also to the plaintschedule contending that those properties are also liable for partitionbetween the parties to the suit.

5. It is true that the amendment petition was filed aftercommencement of the trail. The contention of the plaintiffs is that dueto subsequent events in the suit when they came to know through theevidence of DW.1 that some other properties, which were gifted andalso purchased by their grand father, have to be included in the suitschedule and therefore, the same cannot be objected to.

6. Having gone through the submissions made on either side,this court is of the considered view that the proposed amendment doesnot introduce any new case and that by way of amendment, theplaintiffs wanted to bring certain properties to be added to the plaintschedule. Whether those properties are liable for partition or not is thequestion to be determined by the trial court after considering theevidence adduced on either side. Further, the proposed amendmentenables the court to give effective and complete adjudication upon theissue involved in the suit and also to avoid multiplicity of the litigation.

The learned court below also observed that there was no tenableobjection in the counter filed by the respondent therein to condone thedelay in filing the petition to receive certain documents. Therefore, inthe considered view of this court, the trial court rightly allowed both thepetitions, which require no interference by this court in the presentrevision petitions.

7. Consequently, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending ifany in these civil revision petitions, shall stand closed.

Date: 30.12.2015BSS

_________________

R. KANTHA RAO, J

HON’BLE SRIJUSTICER. KANTHA RAO

69

Civil Revision Petition Nos.4631 & 4613 of 2015

BSS

Date: 30.12.2015