Civil revision petition maintaining appeal against the trial court's order allowing amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. Petitioner granted time to file additional written statement.
Petitioner granted four weeks time to file additional written statement.
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 SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1536 OF 2011
Dated:24-10-2014
Between:
M/s. Food World supermarkets Limited, Corporate Office situated at No.740, Eswari Industrial Estate, Hulimavu, Bannerghatta road, Bangalore, rep., by its authorized signatory Mr. Venkata Subbaiah, Head Legal
... PETITIONER
AND
Smt. R. Archana
.. RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1536 OF 2011
ORDER:
The respondent filed O.S No.616 of 2008 in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fas t Track Court) , City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner for eviction from the suit schedule premises and recovery of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed I.A No.739 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit her to amend the plaint. An attempt was made to incorporate a plea in relation to regularization of some unauthorized construction by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the I.A through order dated 06-04-2011.
Heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
It may be true that by the time the I.A was filed, the trial of the suit commenced. The fact however remains that notwithstanding the provisions contained in proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the concerned party was not
aware of a particular state of affairs by the time the trial commenced, the proviso does not prohibit the filing of applications for amendment of the pleadings at a later stage. The trial Court has taken note of the relevant facts and the provisions of law and allowed the application. The petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment on account of allowing of I.A.
The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted four weeks time from today to file additional written statement with reference to the amendment caused to the plaint.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
27-10-2014 ks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC bars amendment of plaint after the commencement of trial considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Food World Supermarkets Limited
Smt. R. Archana
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
