Civil revision allowed permitting plaintiff to amend plaint to seek recovery of possession subject to compliance with Limitation Act and Court Fees Act within three weeks.
Civil revision allowed; amended plaint to be filed within three weeks complying with Act requirements; miscellaneous applications closed.
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 OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2302 of 2012
BETWEEN
Smt. Nagam Indira.
... PETITIONER
AND
M.R. Vijay Kumar and two others.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SHARAD SANGHI
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. G. DHANANJAI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This is a plaintiff’s revision aggrieved by the order of the Court below in disallowing an application for amendment of plaint so as to seek relief of recovery of possession.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Petitioner filed suit for perpetual injunction, which is being contested by the respondents. The present application I.A.No.100 of 2012 for amendment was moved by the petitioner after one year of filing of the suit on the ground
that in the interregnum, she has lost possession. The said application was rejected by the Court below under impugned order dated 31.01.2012.
4. I am unable to see any ground, much less sustainable ground from the order of the Court below to sustain the said order. In normal course, the plaintiff, in a perpetual injunction suit, can always seek relief of recovery of possession, if he looses possession during the pendency of the suit. The amended relief, however, is subject to compliance with Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act as well as other compliances under the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the amendment is allowed and if the plaintiff is required to value the relief of recovery of possession, the suit itself may exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and the suit will have to be returned for presentation before the appropriate Court.
6. In my view, those questions are premature at the moment and as and when the plaintiff values the suit and pays the Court fee, on the amended relief, the trial Court shall look into all those aspects and pass appropriate orders.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. Petitioner shall file amended plaint and shall comply with all other requirements under the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act within three (3) weeks from today. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
October 18, 2012 DSK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether plaintiff can seek recovery of possession relief by amendment during pendency of perpetual injunction suit.
Whether question of pecuniary jurisdiction is ripe for decision at this stage of amendment application.
Whether amendment application was rightly rejected by lower court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Nagam Indira
M.R. Vijay Kumar
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
