In a civil revision petition under Article 226, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the revision directed against the rejection of a plaint amendment application. The court held that since no additional plea was sought and sufficient material existed, the trial court rightly refused amendment.
No 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 JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1241 OF 2009
Between: Mopidi Konamma AND
..... PETITIONER
S.Rama Subba Reddy
.....RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1241 OF 2009
O R D E R :
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.02.2009 in I.A.No.100 of 2009 in O.S.No.191 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder the plaintiff’s request for amendment of plaint was rejected.
The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of money towards the value of damages for the alleged breach of covenant of title. The defendant filed a written statement contesting the suit claim and admittedly, both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.100 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking amendment of the plaint. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order, dated 12.02.2009 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The material available on record shows that the plaint initially filed itself contained a specific plea that due to fraud played by the defendant the plaintiff was deprived of the land and incurred loss. By virtue of the proposed amendment, as no additional plea was sought to be added, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application for amendment of plaint. The discretion exercised by the Court below, on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material already available on record, warrants no interference
by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________ Date: 22.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J.
Ivd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's dismissal of an application for amendment of plaint when no new plea was proposed.
Whether the exercise of discretion by the trial court under Article 227 warrants amendment of the plaint.
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the special original jurisdiction petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mopidi Konamma
S.Rama Subba Reddy
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
