Allowed

Chinnamsetty Muralikrishna v. The District Collector

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jul 2019CRP/3553/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution, allowed a civil revision petition setting aside the low Court's order rejecting an amendment application. The Court permitted the amendment to add recovery of possession relief, citing precedents to avoid multiplicity of suits.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was allowed, setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.201 of 2018 in O.S. No.67 of 2016. The amendment application (I.A.No.201 of 2018) was allowed.

Chinnamsetty Muralikrishna Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3553 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 09.5.2018, passed in I.A.No.201 of 2018 in O.S. No.67 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sidhout, by virtue of which the lower Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to amend the plaint, directing the defendants to deliver the possession of ABCD schedule property to the plaintiff.

¶4

Heard the counsel for petitioner. The counsel for the respondents does not appear.

¶5

The counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the suit filed for declaration and consequential permanent injunction, the petitioner filed I.A. No.211 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction against fourth respondent, and the same was dismissed by the lower Court on 07.7.2017 for default. In the meantime, the respondents dispossessed the petitioner from the schedule property, which has necessitated him to seek for amendment of the plaint including the relief of recovery of possession. The Court below, though observed that the nature of the suit would not be changed by amending the plaint, declined to grant the relief, on the ground that the petitioner did not exercise due diligence.

¶6

The petitioner got to be dispossessed on 30.1.2018 and the present petition seeking for amendment is filed on 24.4.2018,

¶7

¶8

which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not with much delay.

¶9

The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu¹ , wherein an amendment petition was filed almost 11 years after the date of institution of the suit, and the Court held that the plaintiff is not debarred from seeking the relief of recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, and that in order to avoid multiplicity of suit, the Supreme Court held that it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit.

¶10

Hence, going by the spirit reflected in the above cited apex Court’s decision, this Court is of considered opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if the petitioner is permitted to make the amendment as sought for.

¶11

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 09.5.2018, passed in I.A.No.201 of 2018. Consequently, I.A.No.201 of 2018 in O.S. No.67 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Sidhout, is allowed, without costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶12

___________________ SMT T. RAJANI, J

¶13

July 02, 2019 YS

¶14

1 (2002) 7 SCC 559

Chinnamsetty Muralikrishna v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnamsetty Muralikrishna v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eeda Suresh Lal at Bose Vs Nethala John Ratnam

Manga Venkata Lakshmi Vs Gudivada Sarojini Devi

Apsrtc Vs P Parvathi

Bedire Deepthi Vs B Nageswara Rao

Akkala Haseem Babu Vs Palivala Indira Alias Akkala Indira

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Derangula Ratna