Disposed

Jajala Muni Chandra v. GaliChalapathy

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2024CRP/537/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant in a specific performance suit sought to amend his written statement to plead a Debt Recovery Tribunal decree against him. The trial court refused, holding the bank should be impleaded but permitted the DTR judgment to be filed and marked. The High Court disposed of the revision, holding the amendment unnecessary since the purpose was already achieved.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of in terms of the Court's observations; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Jajala Muni Chandra Vs GaliChalapathy — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

^ y

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 537 OF 2024

¶5

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to begs to present the instant Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon’ble Court against the Order dated 24.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.95/2023 in O.S.No.30 of 2023 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Chittoor District at Srikalahasthi for the following among other grounds, inter alia, each of which are in alternative but without prejudice each other.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Jajala Muni Chandra, S/o Late Jajala Nadhamuni Setty, Aged about 66 years, R/o No.7-647, Imam Street, RTC Bus Stand Road, Srikalahasthi, Tirupati District

¶8

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT No.1 AND

¶9

Gali Chalapathy, S/o Gali Srinivasulu Naidu, Aged about 55 years, R/o DiguvaKonathaneri Village, Konathaneri Post, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶10

Jajala Yasoda Adar, W/o Jajala Muni Seshaiah, Aged^about39 years R/o D.No.8-499-2, Kothapeta, Brahmana Street, Near MPUP School, Srikalahasthi Town, Srikalahasthi Post and Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.2/DEFENDANT No.2

¶11

lA NO: 1 OF ?n9A

¶12

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No,30 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Chittoor District Srikalahasthi.

¶13

Counsel for the PetitlonenSRI. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI MADHU SUDHAN P Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared

¶14

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶15

[3206]

¶16

APHC010122332024

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶18

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶19

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 537/2024

¶23

Between;

¶24

Jajala Muni Chandra ...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

Galichalapathy and Others

¶27

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶31

1.MADHU SUDHAN P

¶32

The Court made the following order:

¶33

The 1®‘ respondent herein had filed O.S.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the Learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, which^{hasbeenrenumbered} as O S.No.30 of 2023 of the file of the Learned XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi. This suit was filed against the petitioner herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.12.2014.

¶34

This suit was resisted by the petitioner on various grounds including the ground that the suit property had been mortgaged with the State

¶35

¶36

RRR, J C.R.P.No.537 of 2024

¶37

Bank of India by deposit of title deeds on 31.01.2015 and that there cannot be any execution of sale by the petitioner.

¶38

After the completion of pleadings, the trial was taken up and at that stage, when P.W.-1 was being cross-examined, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C for amendment of the written statement. The amendment sought by the petitioner was to include the facts that the State Bank of India had filed O.A.No.03 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, for recovery of debt, in which the Debt Recovery Tribunal by an order dated 31.07.2019 had decreed the application and directed repayment of the loan due to the State Bank of India to an extent of Rs.1,08,74,330.63/- + interest set out in the said order. Apart from this, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had also directed the defendants therein, including the petitioner herein, from depleting, transferring, encumbering or in any way dealing with their assets without first paying the^{claimofthebank.}

¶39

The petitioner sought to bring these facts on record by amendment of the written statement of the plaint. The said application, which was numbered as I.A.No.95 of 2023, was dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 24.01.2024.

¶40

The Trial Court took the view that such an amendment could not have been made without impleading the State Bank of India. Apart from this.

¶41

¶42

RRR, J C.R.P.No.537 of2024

¶43

the Trial Court also held that the petitioner was at liberty to file the judgement and decree in O.A.No.03 of 2018 in the suit and to mark the same.

¶44

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Revision Petition.

¶45

Heard Sri A. Sai Bhargav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Madhusudhan, learned counsel appearing for the 1®’ / respondent.

¶46

The view of the Trial Court that the aforesaid amendment could not be carried out without impleading the State Bank of India does not appear to be correct. However, the purpose of the amendment sought by the petitioner was to enable the petitioner to file and mark the judgement of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.03 of 2018. That purpose is still achieved as the Trial Court has effectively permitted the petitioner to file the judgment in the Court and to mark the same.

¶47

In such circumstances, the necessity of amending the written statement would not arise and any permission granted for such amendment would only delay the trial.

¶48

¶49

RRR, Ji ^ C.R.P.No.537 of 2024

¶50

\ \

¶51

is 10. In the circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition disposed of, in terms of the above observations. There^{shallbenoorderas} to costs.

¶52

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if^any shall stand closed.

¶53

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SDI- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR M

¶56

SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

The XII Additional District Judge, Chittoor District^{atSrikalahasthi.}

¶59

One CC to SRI. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV, Advocate

¶60

[OPUC]

¶61

One CC to SRI. MADHU SUDHAN P, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Three C.D.Copies

¶63

¶64

HIGH COURT DATED:26/07/2024

¶65

ORDER

¶66

CRP.No.537 of 2024

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE CRP

Jajala Muni Chandra v. GaliChalapathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jajala Muni Chandra v. GaliChalapathy

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

E. Suresh Vs the Regional Director

I. Koti Reddy, Vs Smt. a. Surya Kumari

Mrs. Godata Laxmi Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary

S Ravi Vs D Nirup Kumar

S. Chan Basha, Vs Pujari Ramakrishna

Smt.C.Anjeramma Vs Poguri Chennaiah