Allowed

Ameti Naveen Kumar v. Ameti Chandraiah

Telangana HC7 Jul 2011CRP/5127/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition wherein the amendment of a plaint was previously dismissed by the trial court. It held that correcting incorrect document numbers in the plaint was permissible as it changed nothing in the cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the amendment application was set aside, and the civil revision petition was allowed.

Ameti Naveen Kumar Vs Ameti Chandraiah — Partition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

C.R.P.No.5127 OF 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ameti Naveen Kumar

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

A n d

¶10

Ameti Chandraiah and three others

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5127 OF 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.10.2010 in I.A.No.146 of 2010 in O.S.No.32 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, was dismissed.

¶15

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶16

3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for partition against the defendants, who are his father and sisters. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues, the trial of the suit has been taken up. As seen from the impugned order, the plaintiff’s side evidence was closed and the matter is

¶17

at the stage of recording defendants’ side evidence.

¶18

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of recording of evidence of plaintiff, it was noticed in para 5 of the plaint that a reference was made to an unrelated document bearing No.1058 of 1968 dated 14.08.1968 instead of the relevant document bearing No.1079 of 1968 dated 26.08.1968. According to the plaintiff, the ‘B’ schedule property is the ancestral property and in a partition between his father (D-1) and grandfather Veeraiah, the said property fell to the share of D-1 and the same was mutated in the name of D-1 and subsequently D-1 conveyed the same in favour of petitioner/plaintiff by way of a gift deed dated 16.09.1982 bearing No.4790 of 1982.

¶19

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that due to inadvertence at the time of drafting the plaint, incorrect description of the documents relating to sale deed and gift deed has crept into para ‘5’ of the plaint wherein the document numbers and their dates were incorrectly noted as 1058 of 1968 dated 14.08.1968 and 4226 of 1982 dated 30.08.1982 respectively, instead of 1079 of 1968 dated 26.08.1968 and 4790 of 1982 dated 16.09.1982. The description of both the sale deed and also the gift deed are said to have been mentioned incorrectly in Para 5 of the plaint due to inadvertence.

¶20

6. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the application is belated as the same is filed during course of trial and no reasons were furnished as to why it was not filed at the earlier point of time before commencement of trial.

¶21

7. It is to be seen that the plea of the plaintiff that the ‘B’ schedule vacant site fell to the share of his father in the partition with the grandfather Veeriah and that subsequently D-1 conveyed the same in favour of plaintiff by way of a gift deed, remained unchanged, even after the proposed amendment. Thus, the amendment does not bring about any change in the nature of the claim or the cause of action nor does it introduce any new plea. The only purpose sought to be achieved by way of proposed amendment is to describe the documents correctly by furnishing the correct number of the documents and also the dates of their execution.

¶22

8. In the circumstances, it is considered that as the proposed amendment does not cause any prejudice to the defendant’s case nor does it introduce any new case or new cause of action and does not alter the nature and character of the suit, it is considered that the proposed amendment for correcting the description of the documents in para ‘5’ of the plaint can be permitted, as proposed, so that there can be an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It is open to the defendant to file additional written statement and based on the additional pleadings, the trial Court may frame additional issues, if any, arising therefrom and give opportunity to both sides to produce further evidence. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.

¶23

9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. Interim stay stands vacated. There shall be no order as to

¶24

costs.

¶25

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶26

07^th July, 2011 Lrkm.

Ameti Naveen Kumar v. Ameti Chandraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameti Naveen Kumar v. Ameti Chandraiah

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

Sarabu Venkata Subbamma, Vs Addepalli Chenchu Ratnamma

Allam Naraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Farooq Ahmed Vs Mohd. Quader

State Bank of India, Yellareddyguda, Vs M. Ganga Raju

Malladi Satya Kumar Vs Malladi Venkata Naga Sailaja

Perikala Velangini Kumar, Vs Perikala Satya Priaya