WP/17658/2020 of Abdul Rawoof Khan, Vs L. Noushad Basha on 31 December 2020

Conclusion

1) Assailing the Order, dated 13.12.2019, passed in I.A. No. 351 of 2019, by the Land Grabbing Court, in L.G.O.P. No. 1 of 2009, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

2) The averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, show that, the Writ Petitioners filed O.P., before the Land Grabbing Court, seeking declaration that, (a) the Petitioners therein are the absolute owners of the Petition Schedule Property; (b) the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as land grabbers of the said land; (c) to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from alienating the Petition Schedule Property; (d) to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards illegal use and occupation of the schedule land.

3) The said O.P. was filed sometime in the year 2006 and it was numbered in the year 2009. Pending O.P., the 1[st] Petitioner died, as such, his legal heirs were brought on record as Petitioner Nos. 4 to 8. Similarly, 2[nd] and 3[rd]

Respondents have also died as such their legal heirs were brought on record as Respondent Nos. 10 to 12 and 13 to 15, respectively.

4) It is stated that, during the trial, the Petitioners were constrained to file I.A. No. 351 of 2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., for amendment of the plaint, in view of inadvertent typographical mistakes that occurred while typing the numbers of the numerical of items etc. Hence, I.A. No. 142 of 2019 filed for amendment was allowed. However, as some of the mistakes went unnoticed, the present I.A. came to be filed.

5) A counter came to be filed disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. It is stated in the counter filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the main contesting parties that the Petitioners sought amendment of the O.P., twice earlier but never made any efforts to seek consequential amendments under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. It is further pleaded that, there is not even a single allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., that the defect could not have been noticed in-spite of due diligence and moreover, the deponent in his cross-examination pleaded ignorance of the details of the property and he is also not aware of the contents of the petition. After considering the relevant material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the I.A. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

6) Sri. M.R.S. Srinivas, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners/Petitioners in main O.P. mainly submits that, the Order impugned is illegal. He pleads that the Trial Court erred in holding that allowing the earlier amending application vide I.A. No.142 of 2019, would bar its jurisdiction to consider the I.A. No. 351 of 2019 on merits. He would further plead that, the Trial Court failed to see that the provisions of C.P.C., have a limited application as per Rule 6 of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988. He would further plead that, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment as now sought will no way prejudice the rights of any parties. He would urge that, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for amendment on the ground that Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice has not been complied with and the application was filed at a belated stage.

7) Sri. Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that, the petition is not maintainable in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. According to him, there is no pleading that in-spite of due diligence the petitioners could not notice the defect in the petition. The amendment is also not permissible in view of the admission on the part of PW1 during cross-examination that he has no knowledge about the details of the property.

8) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the Petitioners?

9) As seen from the record, the Trial Court rejected the amendment of the Plaint on the ground that the same came to be made after the commencement of the trial. But a perusal of the material filed before the court and more particularly the amendments, which are sought to be made to the plaint /O.P., it is very much clear that, these amendments does not in any way alter the nature of the O.P., or would lead to fresh cause of action. Further, the amendments sought are only to correct certain clerical or typographical mistakes, which crept in due to oversight. The amendments which are sought to be carried out are as under:

1. “The alphabets appearing the letters ‘as’ and ‘in’ in line number 3 of para-b in page 6 of the main O.P. Prayer portion may be replaced with alphabetic “BB1PP1”. line number 3 of para-b in page 6 of the main O.P. Prayer portion may be replaced with alphabetic “BB1PP1”.

2. II appearing in line No. 3 para-d page 6 of the O.P. may be replaced with Roman letter “IV”. may be replaced with Roman letter “IV”.

3. The Roman letter “II” appearing in line No. 3 page No.8 of the main O.P. may be replaced with the Roman letter “IV”. No.8 of the main O.P. may be replaced with the Roman letter “IV”.

4. In the Roman letter “II” appearing in line No. 7 of Schedule-IV letter “I” may be added making it Roman letter “III” and in the Roman letter “III” appearing in line no. 8 of Schedule-IV letter “I” may be deleted making it “II”. Schedule-IV letter “I” may be added making it Roman letter “III” and in the Roman letter “III” appearing in line no. 8 of Schedule-IV letter “I” may be deleted making it “II”.

5. The letter ‘after his death petitioners 4 to 8 in between letter “no.1” and “and”.” between letter “no.1” and “and”.”

10) As stated earlier, these amendments even if allowed to be carried out do not alter the nature of the suit. These are mistakes occurred due to clerical errors. As such, the impugned order is set-aside and the petition for amendment is allowed directing the Trial Court to incorporate the necessary amendment in the plaint.

11) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

12) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________

JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date: 31.12.2020 SM…

______________________

JUSTICE D. RAMESH

SM.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

Writ Petition No. 17658 of 2020

Date: .12.2020