Allowed

N Ravichandra v. a M Krishna

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2022CRP/403/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an application to implead defendants in a specific performance suit. The Court held that the trial court erred in not rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC because the petitioner failed to seek proper consequential amendments in the plaint as required by Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the impleadment application was set aside, and liberty was granted to file a fresh petition complying with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice.

N Ravichandra Vs a M Krishna — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

C.R.P No. 403 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 09.10.2020 dismissing I.A.No.583 of 2019 in O.S.No.385 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the defendant Nos.3 to 6, who are respondent Nos.3 to 6 in the Revision Petition.

¶5

The suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs.

¶6

The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.583 of 2019 to implead defendants Nos.3 to 6, as they are executants of Ex.A9, which is a link document to agreement of sale under Ex.A1. As can be seen from the petition filed before the trial court, the proposed parties/defendants Nos.3 to 6 are not shown as respondents to the petition and they were not given notices, however, they are shown as parties in the revision petition and notices were sent to them. The notices to respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were served, whereas notices to respondent Nos.3 to 4 were returned unserved, as no such addressee in the given door number. Even

¶7

¶8

the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have not made appearance before this Court. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have made appearance before this Court through learned counsel Sri. V. R. Reddy Kuvvuri.

¶9

Furthermore, the consequential amendments pleaded in the petition in I.A. 583 of 2019 are mere addition of the name and address, and other details of the proposed parties in the small and full cause title only. No further consequential amendments to the pleadings in the plaint are sought as against these proposed parties. Thus, the consequential amendments pleaded are insufficient and inadequate.

¶10

Since the proposed parties are not made as parties to the petition and they are not given opportunity and the consequential amendments pleaded are also insufficient and inadequate. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought liberty to file a fresh application before the trial court. 6. At the time of checking the petition, the trial court ought to have noticed that the proposed parties have not been shown as respondents and even during the time of enquiry, the trial court ought to have seen that the proposed parties were not given any notice. As per Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC shall be rejected, if

¶11

¶12

consequential amendments are not sought in the same petition.

¶13

Mere amendment in the small and full cause title cannot be construed as proper and sufficient consequential amendments intended under Rule 28 of the Civil Rule of Practice. A duty is cast on the Presiding Officer to reject the petition, if consequential amendments are not sought. Therefore, every court shall make endeavour to check the petition before registering the same, so as to avoid dismissal of the petition at a later point of time, for the reason of mere lack of or insufficient or improper consequential amendments sought in the petition. Here, in the present case, it is an example of lack of proper care taken at the time of checking the petition and registering the same and even during the course of enquiry. Thus, in the interest of the justice, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned order giving liberty to the petitioner to file a proper petition.

¶14

In the light of the forgoing discussion, the impugned order is set aside giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition duly complying the Rule 28 of Civil Rule of Practice and impleading the proposed parties also in the petition.

¶15

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶16

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶18

this petition shall stand closed

¶19

B.S.BHANUMATHI, J

¶20

05.12.2022. K M S

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶23

C.R.P No. 403 of 2021

¶24

05.12.2022

¶25

K M S

N Ravichandra v. a M Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Ravichandra v. a M Krishna

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

Gandla Siddappa Vs G Siddeswarappa

D R Tulasi Prasad Vs Surya Sri Harsha

Alla Nagabhushanam(Died) Vs Mamidi Ramulu (Died)

M.Eswar Reddy Vs M.Anjamma

Sathyam Meadows Apartment, Vs Bathenapalli Chenna Reddy

A Gopal Rao Vs M.Noorjaham