Dismissed

Gudipally Balamani v. Laxmapuram Susheela

Telangana HC3 Sept 2010CRP/3935/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to amend a written statement. The trial court refused because counsel swore to the affidavit without claiming personal knowledge.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed without costs with liberty to the defendants to make an appropriate application supported by a proper affidavit which shall be considered by the trial Court on its ow

Gudipally Balamani Vs Laxmapuram Susheela — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3935 of 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Gudipally Balamani and another

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

AND Laxmapuram Susheela

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.692 of 2009 in O.S.No.191 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, dated 8-4-2010 by which the trial Court has dismissed the petition for amendment of the written statement on the ground that it is the learned counsel for the defendants, who gave the affidavit in support of the petition without any explanation as to why his affidavit was necessitated.

¶11

Though the grounds of revision challenged the said order, it is seen from the prayer for amendment that it was sought to be incorporated in the original written statement that the suit schedule land is part and parcel of Ac.4.29guntas of land in Sy.No.267 purchased by Gudipally Balamani and to delete the last words “suit

¶12

land” replacing the same by the words “said land”. The learned counsel for the defendants himself had sworn to the affidavit in support of the said application for amendment referring to the claims in the suit and the written statement and contending that there was an oversight due to omission of the relevant lines in preparing the written statement through the computer. However, the learned counsel could not have claimed and did not claim any personal knowledge of the purchase by Gudipally Balamani or the suit land being part and parcel of Ac.4.29guntas in Sy.No.267 or the purchase by Balamani being in respect of that land. It is for the defendants to submit through an appropriate affidavit in support of such an application about the background and the justification for the request and the trial Court cannot be considered to have gone wrong if it had refused to consider the request on the strength of the affidavit of the counsel for the defendants, who did not claim any personal knowledge and who did not state the contents of the affidavit to be based on any information on belief.

¶13

Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that an affidavit shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications on which statements of his belief may be admitted provided that the grounds thereof are stated. The learned counsel could not have claimed his own knowledge and did not state the grounds for belief concerning the contents of the affidavit.

¶14

While the impugned order cannot be, hence, interfered with, interests of justice will be better served by not foreclosing the options of the defendants to have such an amendment decided on merits, on any technical grounds. Therefore, the defendants can be permitted to move an appropriate application supported by a proper affidavit in this regard, if they desire and opt to do so,

¶15

which request shall be considered by the trial Court on its own merits in accordance with law irrespective of the impugned order.

¶16

No notice of the order passed herein need be given to the plaintiff as nothing is being decided on merits herein and any request of the defendants for such an amendment will be again considered with notice to him and after hearing him before the trial Court.

¶17

Consequently, after hearing Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the C.R.P. is being disposed of at the admission stage accordingly.

¶18

Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs with liberty to the defendants to make an appropriate application seeking the same amendment supported by a proper affidavit, if they desire and opt to do so, which shall be considered by the trial Court on its own merits in accordance with law irrespective of the impugned order.

¶19

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶20

Date: 03-09-2010 Ksn

Gudipally Balamani v. Laxmapuram Susheela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gudipally Balamani v. Laxmapuram Susheela

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

Vaddiparthi Ravikanth Vs B.A.V. Lakshminarayana

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mekala Laxmi

J.Venkata Naga Surendra Kumar and Anr. Vs S.Rambabu and Anr.

Smt. Renuka Yadav Vs Bayyakara Prakash

Y Visweswara Reddy Vs Payyavula Keshav

Pallepalepu Ana Grace Raja Rajeswari Devi Vs Smt. Rayaprolu Suryabhanumathi