Dismissed

Machineni Ramachandra Rao v. Vadlamudi Sunitha

Telangana HC25 Mar 2011CRP/1287/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision under Article 228 of the Constitution of India challenged the trial court's order allowing an amendment to the fifth defendant's written statement in a partition suit. The amendment added paragraphs arguing limitation and exclusive possession. The High Court dismissed the revision, citing judicial liberalism in permitting written statement amendments and holding no infirmity in the t

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Machineni Ramachandra Rao Vs Vadlamudi Sunitha — Partition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶2

CRP No.1287/2009

¶3

Dt.25-3-2011

¶4

Machineni Ramachandra Rao

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1. Vadlamudi Sunitha and others.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

The court made the following:

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶11

CRP No.1287/2009

¶12

Oral Order

¶13

This revision by the plaintiff under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is filed to revise the orders dt. 1-12-2008 passed in IA No.649/2003 in OS No.261/1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, whereunder petition filed by the fifth defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 and Sec.151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was allowed.

¶14

In a suit filed for partition, the fifth defendant filed the written statement contending that her uncle ie., plaintiff and another uncle ie., 1^st defendant executed oral gift deeds in respect of an extent of Ac.090 cents each on 16-11-1985 in her favour and they delivered the possession of the said property and she took possession accepting the gift and the said gift was acted upon. It was further contended that herself, her father, 2^nd defendant, and 4^th defendant got executed a partition deed on 16-11-1985 and an extent of Ac.0-92 cents out of plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of this defendant, besides some other properties, which she took delivery of the said Ac.0-92 cents along with Ac.1-80 cents gifted to her by the plaintiff and the first defendant and she (fifth defendant) obtained title books and pattadar passbooks from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapulapadu.

¶15

The fifth defendant filed the above IA for amendment of written statement by adding para 6(a) and 6(b), whereunder it was

¶16

stated that the suit for partition without seeking relief of recovery of possession against the defendants is not maintainable and claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as she has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property continuously till the date of suit. The trial court, by the impugned order, allowed the petition.

¶17

In fact, the plea taken by the defendant No.5 is not the first time; she has already pleaded the same but by elaborating the same, she sought amendment of the written statement by way of adding paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b).

¶18

Considering the similar facts, the Supreme Court in USHA BALASHAHEB SWAMI V. KIRAN APPASO SWAMI (2007 AIR SCW 2545) held that “in the case of amendment of a written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case….. In allowing the amendment of the written statement a liberal approach is a general view when admittedly in the event of allowing the amendment the other party can be compensated in money. Technicality of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties.”

¶19

Normally, the High court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in allowing amendments of the written statement.

¶20

For the reasons aforementioned, no infirmity is discernible in the order passed by the trial court in allowing amendment of the written statement warranting interference

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶22

_______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J.

¶23

Dt.25-3-2011 kmr

Machineni Ramachandra Rao v. Vadlamudi Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machineni Ramachandra Rao v. Vadlamudi Sunitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Satyanarayana, s/o Rajesham Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapalli

G. Sasikala, Vs The Collector, Chittoor District

Khaira Bhooma Goud, Vs The District Collector

Mohammad Kalimulla Vs Hazara Bi

Korra Satyanarayana Vs Borra Naga Durga Prasad

Shaik Masthan, Vs Saiprya Chit Fund (P) Ltd.