Allowed
Nagalla Ramanaiah v. Nagalla Krishna
Telangana HCCRP/5945/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.…
What the court decided
AI extract
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.…
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.
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
C.R.P. Nos.5945 & 6016 of 2010
COMMON ORDER:
Both the revisions are inter-related. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in C.R.P.No.6016 of 2010.
The petitioners filed O.S.No.31 of 2009 against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole. The 1st respondent, on the other hand, filed O.S.No.40 of 2005 in the same Court against the petitioners herein and respondents 2, 3 and Chavali Padmaja, (5th respondent in C.R.P.No.5945), for partition.
In O.S.No.31 of 2009, there is a reference to a Will, dated 24-08-1971, in the plaint. The petitioners filed I.A.No.401 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint, by correcting the date of the Will, as 24-08-1977. That I.A was allowed. However, the correction was effected only at one place in the plaint, because the prayer in the I.A., was not comprehensive. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No.519 of 2010 with a prayer to permit them to correct the date of the Will at other places in the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 15-11-2010. C.R.P.No.6016 of 2010 is filed against the same.
In O.S.No.40 of 2005, the 1st respondent herein mentioned certain items of property. The 1st petitioner herein filed I.A.No.213 of
2007 with a prayer to direct addition of certain other items. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., stating that the defendant in a suit cannot seek amendment of a plaint. Since the 1st petitioner filed a writtenstatement already, he filed I.A.No.173 of 2009 with a prayer to permit him to file additional written-statement, showing the properties that are to be included in the plaint schedule. That I.A. was dismissed on 1511-2010. C.R.P.No.5945 of 2010 is filed against it.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
A perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court in both the IAs discloses that a totally casual approach was adopted. A small correction as to the date of the Will was to be made, and inadvertently, the petitioners did not ask for a general relief concerning the Will, wherever it occurs. Since, it became necessary for correction of the date of the Will, at other places in the plaint, the I.A.No.519 of 2010 is filed. As a matter of course, that application ought to have been allowed.
Coming to the second aspect of the matter: In a suit for partition, it is always open to the parties to seek addition or deletion of the properties as regards which, partition is claimed. Such a facility is available even at the stage of final decree proceedings. In all sincerity, the 1st petitioner brought to the notice of the trial Court and wanted addition of certain items in the plaint. That was not acceded to. At least, when he wanted to file additional written-statement, permission ought to have been granted. Mere addition of items cannot be treated as final, and the same would be subject to further adjudication, after trial.
Hence, both the revisions are allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. As a result, the concerned applications in the respective suits shall stand allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt.19-08-2011.
KO
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing applications for amendment of plaint and filing additional written statement in partition suits.
Whether a casual review of an application requires permission for necessary corrections or additional statements.
Whether the lower appellate court should have set aside the trial court orders in both revisions jointly.
Petitioners
Respondents
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court