Allowed

Syed Azeemuddin, v. Smt. Rehmatunissa Begum

Telangana HC23 Apr 2013CRP/4569/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed revisions filed by a lessee challenging the trial Court's dismissal of his applications to amend pleadings and admit a receipt. The Court set aside the lower order, allowing amendment and document filing subject to reciprocal rights of the lessor to rebut.

What did the court decide?

Conditional allowance of applications for amendment of pleadings and filing of receipt, setting aside the trial Court's dismissal.

Syed Azeemuddin, Vs Smt. Rehmatunissa Begum — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P. Nos.4568 & 4569 of 2012

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These two revisions are filed by the sole defendant in O.S.No.1633 of 2011, on the file of the II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶5

The petitioner is the lessee of the respondent, in respect of the mulgies, since 2006. The respondent filed the suit for eviction of the petitioner, by pleading several grounds. The petitioner filed writtenstatement and the trial of the suit is in progress. He filed two applications, being I.A.No.318 of 2012, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., for permission to amend the written-statement by adding paragraph 4- A, and I.A.No.319 of 2012, under Rule IA(3) of Order VIII C.P.C., with a request to permit him to file a receipt, dated

¶6

05-04-2006. It was pleaded that, while instructing his counsel to prepare a reply to the notice issued by the respondent, and writtenstatement in the suit, he did not remember the fact that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid, as advance, to the respondent, under a receipt. It was stated that the forgetfulness was on account of the serious illness, and kidney trouble, suffered by the petitioner.

¶7

The applications were opposed by the respondent by filing a counter. The trial Court dismissed the applications through common order dated 01-08-2012. Hence, these two revisions.

¶8

Heard Sri D. Pochaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶9

Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶10

The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner for eviction from the suit schedule properties. There does not appear to be serious dispute about the existence of relationship of lessee and lessor between the parties. The trial of the suit is at an advanced stage. The petitioner filed two applications, referred to above: one for amendment of the pleadings in the written-statement, and the other for permission to file a document.

¶11

If one goes by the rigor of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., the applications certainly deserve to be dismissed, and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the trial Court. However, the plea of the petitioner, that he suffered illness and did not remember the event, which took place in the year 2006, cannot be totally brushed aside. Further, mere filing of a receipt, or amendment of the pleading is not going to be final.

¶12

The respondent would certainly have an opportunity to rebut the same. The burden squarely rests upon the petitioner to prove the factum of payment. In case it is proved that the payment is made, it would certainly have an important bearing upon the entire controversy.

¶13

Hence, the revisions are allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. As a result, I.A.Nos.318 and 319 of 2012 are allowed. The respondent shall be entitled to file rejoinder to the paragraph, added through the written-statement, through amendment. The receipt of document shall be subject to the admissibility. In case it is taken on record, the respondent shall be entitled to adduce rebuttal evidence.

¶14

The miscellaneous petitions filed in the C.R.Ps shall also stand

¶15

disposed of.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶18

Dt.23-04-2013 KO

Syed Azeemuddin, v. Smt. Rehmatunissa Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Azeemuddin, v. Smt. Rehmatunissa Begum

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

Muvvala Chinnayya (died) Vs The Special Officer and Competent Authority

The Dargah Hazrath Mansoorshah Wali Vs Shaik Yakub Ali

Chitikela Nooka Raju, Vs Ruthala Sreerama Murthy

Smt. Polas Shalini , Ch. Santhoshi Bai, Vs Polas Shiva Kumar

Dogga Demudu, Vs Sukhivhava Chit Fund Private Limited

B.Pushpavathi Vs Chief Administrative Officer, and Accounts Officer/