Dismissed

G S L Medical College and Gen Hospital, Rajanagaram v. Grampanchayat, Rajanagaram, Rjy, E.G.Dist

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2019CRP/1469/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Revision Petition No. 1469 of 2016, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the Trial Court's order permitting an amendment to the plaint. The amendment sought to add door numbers for buildings under the same assessment in a suit for house tax recovery. The Court held the amendment was bona fide, did not change the cause of action, and did not prejudice the defendant, direc

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court order confirmed; Petitioner directed to file additional written statement; Trial Court to frame issues including limitation bar.

G S L Medical College and Gen Hospital… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

MVR,J CRP No.1469 of 2016

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1469 OF 2016

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order in I.A.No.498 of 2015 in O.S.No.63 of 2012, dated 10.02.2016, on the file of the Court of learned Family Judge-cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry.

¶6

The plaintiff is the petitioner in the above petition. It laid the suit for recovery of Rs.3,07,50,623/- with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till realization as well as costs, representing the arrears of house tax for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Stating that a mistake has arisen in preparing the plaint, in failing to mention door numbers assigned to the properties belonging to the petitioner, except 6-265 and 6-265/1 under Assessment No.1892, the respondent requested amendment of the plaint suitably.

¶7

The proposed amendment sought is as follows:

¶8

“To add the following sentence at the end of Para-5 of the plaint.

¶9

“The defendant is not only the owner of the buildings bearing D.Nos. 6-265 & 6-265/1, but also the buildings bearing D.Nos.6-265/1 to 6-265/14 under assessment Nos.1892, 1753, 1754 to an extent of 14 buildings for which taxes are due from the respondent-defendant thereby the claim in the present suit is the outcome”.”

¶10

The petitioner contended that the proposed amendment is hopelessly barred by time and it is not based on the notices issued by the petitioner, under Sections 60 and 61 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, prior to institution of the suit. According to the petitioner, when special demand notices did not mention either door numbers or taxes collected, the respondent cannot seek amendment to include other door numbers, which are not subject matter of the suit. Thus,

¶11

MVR,J CRP No.1469 of 2016

¶12

¶13

it is claimed that the proposed amendment is trying to introduce a new cause of action and that serious prejudice would be caused, if the proposed amendment stood allowed.

¶14

Learned trial Judge, upon considering the material and respective contentions of the parties, permitted the proposed amendment as prayed.

¶15

It is against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

¶16

Sri Challa Dhanunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted arguments and none represented the respondent, when this matter is heard.

¶17

Now, the point for determination is-“Whether the amendment of the plaint sought by the respondent can be permitted?

¶18

POINT :-

¶19

There is no dispute that the petitioner is assessed for property tax by the respondent Gram Panchayat in respect of 14 buildings bearing Dr.Nos.6-265 and 6-265/1 to 6-265/14, covering different assessment numbers. By the proposed amendment, the respondent has not claimed any further amount than what has been sought in the plaint, towards arrears of tax. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the proposed amendment would result in change in cause of action to lay the suit. Whether the liability of the petitioner as claimed by the respondent stands or not, cannot be decided in this petition and it is the subject matter for trial in the suit.

¶20

As rightly observed in the order under revision, when the real question in controversy is, as to levy of tax being proper or not, when

¶21

MVR,J CRP No.1469 of 2016

¶22

¶23

the demand towards the tax remained the same, it cannot be stated that the proposed amendment would in any manner prejudice the defence of the petitioner.

¶24

Contention of the petitioner that the proposed amendment is sought to get over Section 135 of the A.P.Gram Panchayat Act and arrears of tax should be claimed for the period of not exceeding three years, can better be considered by the trial Court, being a mixed question of fact and law. When the nature of defence set up by the petitioner is one of total denial of the claim of the respondent, it has every right to file additional pleadings, opposing the proposed amendment, in the suit.

¶25

Another contention on behalf of the petitioner is that, trial in the suit has already commenced and that the respondent did not make out that in spite of due diligence, it could not bring out the proposed amendment before commencement of the trial.

¶26

In the back drop of the circumstances observed in this case, when the effort is only to elucidate the matter in controversy with reference to the building in the same premises belonging to the petitioner under different door numbers as well as assessment numbers, this post trial amendment, cannot, in any manner, affect the claim of the petitioner. Reason assigned on behalf of the respondent that their Advocate, while preparing for the suit, could observe this omission, who had advised the respondent for amending the plaint, itself makes out that, the proposed amendment sought is, a bona fide attempt for furnishing better particulars, to support its claim, by the respondent. Therefore, in the circumstances, it cannot be stated that there was want of diligence on the part of the

¶27

MVR,J CRP No.1469 of 2016

¶28

¶29

respondent in its effort, in this process. Therefore, finding that there are no circumstances warranting interference with the order under revision, this Civil Revision Petitioner has to be dismissed. The learned trial Judge has considered all the required parameters in permitting amendment of the plaint in terms of Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC in right perspective. The order under revision is not perverse nor suffers from any serious irregularity.

¶30

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Order of the trial Court in I.A.No.498 of 2015 in O.S.No.63 of 2012, dated 10.02.2016, of the Court of learned Family Judge-cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, is confirmed. The learned trial Judge is directed to permit the petitioner to file additional written statement and shall frame appropriate issues thereon including in respect of bar of limitation in making such claim by the respondent. No costs.

¶31

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

_________________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶33

Dt:12-12-2019 RRR

¶34

MVR,J CRP No.1469 of 2016

¶35

¶36

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

¶37

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1469 OF 2016

¶38

Dt:12-12-2019

¶39

RRR

G S L Medical College and Gen Hospital, Rajanagaram v. Grampanchayat, Rajanagaram, Rjy, E.G.Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G S L Medical College and Gen Hospital, Rajanagaram v. Grampanchayat, Rajanagaram, Rjy, E.G.Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Venkata Siva Parvathi, Rr Dist Vs Ch. Venkateswara Rao (Died), Krishna Dist and Others

G Venkata Siva Parvathi Vs Ch Venkateswara Rao (Died) and Another

Korivi Subbarayudu, Anantapur Dist Vs Pasupuleti, Anantapur Dist

Thogaru Srinivasa Rao Vs Sayani Srinivasa Rao

Rao Ranga Mannar Krishna Ranga Rao Vs Maturu Narayana Rao

Seelam Johny Sudhakar, Vs Ravela Prem Raj