The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a civil revision petition against an order allowing amendment of rent control petition. The amendment corrected boundary descriptions without affecting the property's nature or schedule, permitting it under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to ensure substantial justice.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with 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
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5886 OF 2009
Between :
Trilok Chand Sobati ...PETITIONER A N D
Ali Asagar and others. …RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5886 OF 2009
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 06.10.2009 in I.A. No. 214 of 2009 in R.C. No. 92 of 2008, on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petition under Order VI Rule17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short “ C.P.C.) filed for permission to amend the R.C., was allowed. 2. The petitioner herein is the respondent, and the respondents herein are the petitioners, in the R.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence was already commenced and the amendment sought for, if allowed,
would change the nature of schedule premises thereby giving rise to a new cause of action and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amendment sought for, is only in the body of the petition, but not the schedule premises, and the door number, and other particulars as mentioned in the schedule of the petition, are not in dispute; that for better adjudication of the dispute, the trial court rightly allowed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same, and hence, prays to dismiss the revision petition.
5. No doubt, the main provision under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., after commencement of trial, ordinarily no amendment can be permitted to be allowed. But as per proviso, to do substantial justice followed such amendment can be allowed. The amendment now sought is to replace ‘eastern side of premises’ in place of ‘Northern side of premises’ in the first line of para 3, and to replace ‘western side of the premises’ in place of ‘Southern side of the premises’ in sixth line of para 3. By ordering that petition, it would not change the nature of premises in question, because the boundaries have been specifically mentioned along with door numbers in the schedule property. Therefore, the trial court rightly allowed the amendment petition as the schedule of the petition along with door numbers and boundaries thereunder are not under challenge or dispute at any point of time and the amendment now sought for is in consonance with the schedule of the property. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
K.C.BHANU. J
MARCH 18, 2010. YVL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether permission to amend the petition to correct boundary descriptions allowed after commencement of trial.
Whether the amendment to replace directional words (Northern/Eastern to Southern/Western) changes the nature of the cause of action.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Trilok Chand Sobati
Ali Asagar and others
K.C. BHANU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
