Allowed

Koyi Anantha Lakshmi v. Koyi Nagendram

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2023CRP/884/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order allowed two civil revision petitions challenging the trial Court dismissal of requests to amend written statements. The High Court reversed the lower decision, setting aside the impugned orders and permitting the amendments, directing the trial Court to dispose of the 2019 suits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; applications for amendment of written statement allowed; case to be disposed of within 03 months.

Koyi Anantha Lakshmi Vs Koyi Nagendram — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 884 and 1101 OF 2023

¶4

COMMON ORDER :

¶5

CRP No.884 of 2023 is filed against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed in I.A No.2082 of 2022 in O.S No.95 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki (for short "the trial Court") and CRP No.1101 of 2023 is filed against the order dated 24.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.119 of 2023 in OS No.96 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court.

¶6

As the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

¶7

The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff. Originally the suit in O.S No.95 of 2019 was filed before the trial Court by the plaintiff/respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and also sought attachment of the petition schedule property belongs to the petitioner/defendant before the judgment. During pendency of the above suit, the. Petitioner/defendant has filed the present impugned 1.A.Nos.2082 of 2022 and 119 of 2023, under Order VI Rule

¶8

¶9

17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to permit the petitioner/defendant to amend the written statement as per the memo of amendment filed along with the petition. On consideration of the material available on record, the Court below has dismissed both the I.As vide separate orders dated 17.02.2023 and 24.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, thé present civil revision petitions are came to be filed.

¶10

Heard Sri N. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

This Court has granted interim directions in both the

¶12

CRPs as prayed for and the same were extended from time to time.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the trial Court is erroneous, contrary to law and probabilities of the case. The impuened orders are opposed to the very spirit and object of Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC. He further submits that the trial Court miserably erred in dismissing the petition for amendment of written statement sought for as no effective defence can be attained in the suit without allowing the petitioner to amend the written

¶14

¶15

statement as sought for. He further submits that the trial Court grossly erred in ignoring the fact that the trial Court in the suit is not yet commenced and hence no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff herein by allowing the petition. The trial Court erroneously came to a conclusion that in written statement originally filed by the petitioner, there is no such defence of non-execution of suit promissory note and hence there is no scope to stretch or enlarge the defence taken by her without considering the settled law that defendant can take number of pleas even contrary to each other in written statement. He mainly contended that the impugned orders are invariably contrary to law in force and liable to be set aside as the suit is posted for cross examination of PWs.1 and 2. Otherwise, the petitioner shall be put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship which cannot be compensated in any manner. Hence, prayed to allow these civil revision petitions.

¶16

To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme court reported in Usha Balashaheb Swami and

¶17

¶18

others Versus Kiran Appaso Swami and others¹ , wherein the

¶19

Apex Court held that :

¶20

From a bare perusal of Order 6 Rule 17.of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the court is conferred with power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow alteration and amendments of the pleadings if it is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, however, provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. However, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code would not be applicable in the present case, as the trial of the suit has not yet commenced.

¶21

It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bonafide one."

¶22

In another decision reported in Baldev Singh and others Versus Manohar Singh and another² , wherein

¶23

the Hon’ble Apex Court held that :

¶24

"Let us now take up the last ground on which the application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the High Courts well the Trial Court. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken, We are unable to appreciate the ground of rejection made by the High Court as well as the Trial Court. After going through the pleadings and also the statements made in the application for amendment of the written statement, we fail to understand how inconsistent plea could be said to have been taken by the appellants in their application for amendment of the written statement, excepting the plea taken by the appellants in the statement, excepting the plea taken by the appellants in the application for amendment of written statement regarding the joint

¶25

1 (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 602

¶26

2 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498

¶27

¶28

ownership of the suit property. Accordingly, on facts, we are not satisfied that the application for amendment of the written statement could be rejected also on this ground. That apart, it is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. It is true that some general principles are certainly common to both, but the rules that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend his pleadings so as to alter materially or substitute his cause of action or the nature of his claim has necessarily no counterpart in the law relating to amendment of the written statement. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. Accordingly in the case of amendment of written statement, the courts are inclined to be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement than of plaint and question of prejudice is less likely to operate with same rigour in the former than in the latter case.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while denying the contentions made by the petitioner, contended that, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any amendment of pleadings in view of bar imposed in the amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. There are willful laches on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

On a perusal of the above decisions, this Court observed that, it is clear that the Court is conferred with power, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow alteration and amendments of the pleadings if it is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It is now well settled by various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that the

¶31

¶32

Courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide one.

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the law down in the citations referred to above and on considering the submissions of both the counsels, this Court observed that, it is settled law that even the admission can be explained and even inconsistent pleas could be taken in the pleadings. Therefore, this Court feels the court below rejecting the application for amendment of written statement on the ground that if the proposed amendment is permitted, which is contra to the admission about the execution or signing of the promissory note by the defendant and even then if this Court ventured to permit amendment that too after commencement of trial, it would drive to tizzy or disarray situation to the Court and such proposed amendment is sure to cause great Prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff and it is nothing but permitting the petitioner / defendant to abuse the process of the Court, is not at all just and proper. Hence, this Court deems fit to allow these civil revision petitions by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the trial Court.

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court in both the civil revision petitions are hereby set aside. The applications for amendment of the written statement stands allowed. Further, since the suits pertains to the year 2019, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously, as possible, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶37

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶38

Date: 08.08.2023.

¶39

Gvl

Koyi Anantha Lakshmi v. Koyi Nagendram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koyi Anantha Lakshmi v. Koyi Nagendram

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Koyi Anantha Lakshmi, Vs Koyi Sambasiva Rao

Jetti Lakshmi Vs Vykunta Padma Sree

Gamidi Venkata Subba Rao Vs Boyina Ram Prakash

Dodla Murali Krishna Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Endowment

Somara Narsimhulu Vs Dolappagari Somara Ramgopal

Kunchala Hanumantha Rao Vs Kunchala Haritha at Sunitha