Telangana High Court
CRP/5270/2013 of Raj Kumar Vs Mahendra Kumar Grandhi on 30 December 2013
Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5270 OF 2013 Dated: 30.12.2013 Between: Sri Raj Kumar .. Petitioner And Sri Mahendra Kumar Gandhi .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5270 OF 2013 ORDER: This Revision Petition is directed
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5270 OF 2013
Dated: 30.12.2013
Between:
Sri Raj Kumar
.. Petitioner
And
Sri Mahendra Kumar Gandhi
.. Respondent
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5270 OF 2013
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 Revision Petition is directed against the order dated13.12.2013 in I.A. No.555/2013 in R.C. No.560/2007 on the file of theCourt of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The revisionpetitioner is the respondent in R.C. No.560/2007.
As could be seen from the material available on record, themain R.C. is filed for fixation of fair rent and the revision petitioner filedhis counter contending that the petition schedule premises is notsituated in a prime area. After the evidence in R.C. is concluded andthe matter is coming up for arguments, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.555/2013 for amendment of his counter to enable him to make aspecific plea that the area in question has been notified as a slum areaunder the Gazette notification dated 13.02.1992. The petitioner inR.C./respondent herein did not oppose to receive the said notificationdated 13.02.1992 in evidence, and therefore the learned RentController by the order under revision dismissed the petition foramendment holding that the petitioner may mark the said Gazettepublication during the course of hearing to support his version.
Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, andhaving carefully gone through the order under revision, I am unable tohold that the Court below has committed any error in dismissing thepetition for amendment.
At the outset, it is to be noticed that the stand sought to be takenby way of amendment is to substantiate the plea in the counter that thepetition schedule premises is not situated in a prime area. Since theCourt below permitted the petitioner to produce in evidence theGazette publication under which the area in question is notified asslum area, the proposed amendment is not necessary for deciding thereal question in controversy between the parties. As noticed above,there is already a plea that the premises is not situated in a primearea. Hence, the Court below is justified in declining to allow theamendment of counter.
For the aforesaid reasons, the interference by this Court is notwarranted on any ground whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thisRevision Petition shall stand closed.
______________
G. ROHINI, J
Date: 30.12.2013MVA