Civil revision petition regarding dismissal of an application to amend a written statement. The High Court held the impugned order did not suffer from illegality warranting interference.
Revision petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3847 OF 2008
DATE:23-02-2011
BETWEEN Myneni Koteswara Rao …Petitioner AND Myneni Lakshmi Parvathi & Others …Respondents
THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3847 OF 2008
ORDER:
First defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.743 of 2008 in O.S.No.43 of 1992, dated 18.8.208 filed for amendment of written statement filed in the suit.
Plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 5 herein, who are none other than the daughters of the first defendant-petitioner herein filed the above suit for partition of the suit schedule property and for allotment of their respective shares. Contesting the suit, the petitioner herein filed his written statement denying the allegation that he has blended his gifted
properties with the joint family properties. He denied the allegation of possessing of Ac.19.39 cents by 1983 by the joint family. Inter alia he pleaded that the properties gifted to him safely belongs to him only, that the plaintiffs have no rights in those properties, that item No.10 does not belong to his family and that it belongs to his brother. Same way, item No.12 also does not belong to the family of first defendant. It is pleaded that under a registered sale deed, dated 28.2.1992 he sold Ac.0.42 cents and Ac.1.17 cents covered by R.S.No.208/2 and 208/1 respectively of Rangannagudem village with 1/4th share in the borewell, motor pump set etc., to the second defendant to discharge the debts due to the second defendant and also to Movva Venkateswara Rao and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for division of those properties.
Later the first defendant-petitioner herein filed the present impugned I.A. seeking amendment of the written statement stating that item Nos.6 to 9,11,13 and 14 to 22 of the plaint schedule properties are his self acquired properties and that he stated in the written statement that some of the items were gifted to him and some of the items were purchased by him out of the income derived from the properties allotted to his share. Therefore, it necessitated him to file the amended written statement to elaborate the pleas. The plaintiffsrespondents 1 to 5 herein filed a counter opposing the petition. They stated that the averments referred in the additional written statement are nothing but the reproduction of averments of chief-affidavit of D.W.1-petitioner filed on 20.7.2005. On completion of crossexamination of D.W.1-petitioner by 8.8.2005 including the aspects of the said claim sought to be introduced under additional written statement, the present I.A. is filed to get over the lacunae, which was elicited in the cross-examination. Therefore, if the petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement, it will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs.
As seen from the counter averments, petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 20.7.2005 taking the stand that the items of the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties. Further the petitioner was cross-examined at length including on the aspects of the claim which is now sought to be introduced under additional written statement. Therefore, only to fill up the lacunae, the present I.A. appears to have been filed to substantiate his plea. The evidence has been closed and the matter has been coming up for arguments from 2005 onwards and at that stage, the present application is filed, which is nothing but to protract the litigation and to get over the evidence, if any, elicited in the cross-examination of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the lower Court rightly not inclined to allow the amendment of the written statement. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court.
The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
_______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Tsr.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Myneni Koteswara Rao
Myneni Lakshmi Parvathi & Others
A. GOPAL REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
