Revision petition against dismissal of application for amendment of plaint. Single Judge held amendment not allowed due to lack of due diligence. Court dismissed revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.29 of 2019
ORDER:
The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, against the respondents herein for declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule property. This suit was dismissed on 19.03.2014. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner moved A.S.No.30 of 2014 before the I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.808 of 2016 to permit her to amend the plaint and to make consequential amendment in the plaint.
There was a partition in the family of the husband of the petitioner on 14.04.1972. Under this partition, the 1st respondent and his brothers had been allotted ‘A’ schedule properties and the husband of the petitioner and his brothers were allotted ‘B’ schedule properties. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner and his brother divided the property allotted to them by way of another partition, on 31.08.1999. The husband of the petitioner had, thereafter, transferred the property acquired by him under the said partition, to the petitioner herein, under a registered deed of gift dated 05.02.2005. The property, which was transferred to the petitioner, is the plaint schedule property. However, the 1st respondent, who was allotted a share in ‘A’ schedule property under the partition dated 14.04.1972 raised a dispute regarding the plaint schedule property which falls under ‘B’ schedule property.
RRR,J 2 C.R.P.No.29 of 2019
RRR,J 3 C.R.P.No.29 of 2019
application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13.12.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
1 2013 (2) ALT 214
2 2016 (3) ALT 211
3 (2017) 5 SCC 212
4 2016 (3) ALT 660
5 2012 (2 ALT 83
6 2015 (5) ALT 323
RRR,J 4 C.R.P.No.29 of 2019
judgments essentially held that amendment of pleadings can be done at any stage of the suit or the appeal. However, such an amendment is permissible only where it is shown that the party seeking such an amendment had exercised due diligence and was unable to raise those pleadings despite exercise of due diligence.
C.R.P.No.29 of 2019
5
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
___ December, 2021 Js.
RRR,J 6 C.R.P.No.29 of 2019
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.29 of 2019
____ December, 2021
Js.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for amendment of plaint filed at the stage of arguments in appeal should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated due diligence in raising pleadings that were not included at the inception.
Petitioner
2nd Respondent
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
