The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of a defendant's application to amend the plaint schedule and implead a party. The Court held such amendment is not maintainable.
Civil Revision Petition No. 1870 of 2024 dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.
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.
't.'.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATL WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1870 OF 2024
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated 21.06.2024 passed in lA No.2/2023 filed in O.S.No. 144/2016 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District,
Between:
Potnuru Venkata Tavitayya, S/o Late Narayanamurthy, Aged 62 years. Retired Teacher, residing at Peddapeta Street, NarasannapetaTownand Mandal, Srikakulam District.
...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
A
lA NO: 1 OF 2024 #1.-..v V > ' 3? ' V ?! "P'etition \ y f
"P'etition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances f stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.144/2016onthefileof the Court of the Additional Senior Judge, Srikakulam,SrikakulamDistrict, pending disposal of C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner;SRI P DURGA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents: —
The Court made the following:
N
r
fir
APHC010362102024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3331]
WEDNESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1870/2024
Between:
Potnuru Venkata Tavitayya ...PETITIONER
AND
Potnuru Venkata Murali Krishna and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.P DURGA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
- The above civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.144 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
x The defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.144 of 2016 seeking partition of the plaint
✓ ^
schedule properties against the petitioner herein. The petitioner by filing written statement has been contesting the suit.
\
- The suit is coming up for cross-examination. Defendant cross-examined plaintiff in-part and it is coming for continuation. At this juncture, defendant field I.A.No.2 of 2023 and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC r/w 28 Civil Rules of Practice seeking to amend the plaint by adding some more properties as plaint “B” and plaint “C” schedules and also sought to add one AnadavarapuEswaraRaoas 2''^ defendant. Plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application. By order dated 21.06.2024, the trial Court dismissed the application, challenging the same, the above revision petition is filed.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that some of the joint family properties were not shown in the suit schedule. He also would submit that proposed party being the subsequent purchaser is necessary party to the suit.
- The point for consideration is:
Whether the interlocutory application filed by the defendant to amend the plaint schedule properties and to implead proposed party as 2"'^ defendant is maintainable?
- The answer to the point is no longer res Integra. In Bollineni Srihari Rao vs. Manukondu Ramadevi and four others^ learned Single Judge of this Court held that the defendant cannot amend the plaint. In para 13 of the order, it was observed as follows:
‘2019(1)ALD 608
I, •
"in view of the settled legal position and the abhorrent/horrend ous consequences which flow if a party is permitted to amend the pleadings of the opposite party even in a suit for partition, this Court finds that the trial court committed grave error in permitting the 4‘^ defendant to amend the plaint schedule”.
However, it was observed that if the defendant so desires, it is for the defendant to amend the written statement.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
SD/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
District.
HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2024
ORDER
CRP.No.1870 of 2024
5 0 9 DEC 20211 I
^ . Current Secuan
DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITH OUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an interlocutory application filed by a defendant to amend the plaint schedule and implead a proposed party is maintainable under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the trial court committed illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application to amend the plaint.
Whether the High Court should allow the civil revision petition filed on constitutional grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bollineni Srihari Rao vs. Manukondu RamadeviFollowed¶48
Bollineni Srihari Rao vs. Manukondu Ramadevi and four others, 2019(1)ALD 608
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Potnuru Venkata Tavitayya
Potnuru Venkata Murali Krishna
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
