This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to permit amendment of pleadings. The petitioner, having failed earlier to file an additional written statement, sought to amend the plaint. The court held that indirect methods cannot be used to bypass direct prohibitions.
Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3116 OF 2023
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 08-09-2023 in IA.No.366 of 2023 in OS.No.403 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.
Between:
Smt.P.Lalithamma, W/o P.Narayanaswamy, age about 65 years, Occ House wife, R/o Kanipakam Village and Post, Irala Mandal, ChittoorDistrict.
...Petitioner/Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS.No.403 of 2011, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, pending disposal of CRP., and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K V L NARASIMHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. V DISHA CHOWDARY
The Court made the following Order:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.No.3116of 2023
ORDER:
The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.403of2011 filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.TheSuitappearsto have been filed for partition of certain propertiesclaimedtobethejoint family properties. The petitioner, at the stage whenthesuitcameupfor adducing her evidence, filed I.A.No.366 of 2023, underOrderVIRule17 of C.P.C., to permit her to amend her written statementraisingadditional facts and grounds including inclusion of certain propertieswhicharesaid to have been omitted in the suit schedule.
2
RRR J C.R.P.No.3116 of 2023
!
I
- Heard Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. V. Disha Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
- The petitioner having failed in getting the additional written statement placed on record, has now moved the present application seeking amendment of the pleadings. It is settled law that a party cannot be permitted to do indirectly what the party could not do directly. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
- Accordingly, this civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, is any, shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- S SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANTWSTRAR SECTION OFFICER
To, 1 The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. One CC to Sri. K V L Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. V Disha Chowdary, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 5. Three CD Copies vna
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/12/2023
ORDER
CRP.No.3116 of 2023
DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS (jblfiJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere when a party seeks pleadings indirectly via amendment after being denied leave to file an additional written statement.
Whether the High Court can permit amendment to pleadings indirectly to bypass the prohibition on additional written statements.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. P. Lalithamma
P. Dhanalakshmi
P. Muralidhar
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
