The Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the allowance of an amendment to a plaint schedule in an ongoing property suit. The plaintiff sought correction regarding her share, and the Court held it was bona fide.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
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.
*** HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM**
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2306 of 2014
% 19th September, 2014
# M/s Bodhan Filling Station
… Revision Petitioner
AND
$ Smt. B. Padmavathi and another
… Respondents.
! Counsel for the Revision Petitioner : Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao
^ Counsel for the 1st respondent : Sri Sujan Kumar
None appeared for Respondent No.2
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
[1] 2007 (2) SCJ 569 2 2007 (1) ALT 466 3 2013 (5) ALD 37 4 2014(2) CCC 128 (A.P.) 5 (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 717
6 (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 421 7 AIR 1957 SUPREME Court 363 (1)
8 (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 97 9 (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 337 10 (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 166
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
C.R.P. No.2306 OF 2014
ORDER:-
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-1st defendant against the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan in I.A.No.11 of 2013 in O.S.No.20 of 2009, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitionerplaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short “CPC”) seeking to amend the description of the plaint schedule property, was allowed.
2. The parties as arrayed in the present revision petition are referred to hereinafter as such for convenience sake.
3. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan for eviction of the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, who are defendants therein, from the suit schedule property and handover the same to her. Similarly, the revision petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the same Court against the respondents herein seeking permanent injunction. Both the suits are pending. While the things stood thus, when the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2009 was coming for arguments, the revision petitioner pointed out about the mistake in the suit schedule property, as such the 1st respondent filed the impugned application before the Court below seeking to amend the description of the plaint schedule property and the same was resisted by her. However, the Court below after hearing both sides, allowed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Sujan Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting 1st respondent.
5. The facts are not in dispute. The revision petitioner filed O.S.No.40 of 2008 seeking relief of permanent injunction against the 1st respondent and one Smt. B. Chinna Padmavathi w/o late B. Narayanareddy. In the plaint it has been categorically admitted that 1st respondent and Smt. B. Chinna Padmavathi are the owners of the property bearing Municipal Number 1-4-488 (Old) corresponding to Municipal Number 1-4-649 (New), the extent of property is 496.25 sq.yards with some structures therein. The boundaries of the property are also specified as under:
East: PWD Road boundary i.e., Bodhan to Nizamabad main road West: Hosue of Pedda Padmavathi. North: Mulgies of Chinna padmavathi. South: P.W.D. Road boundary i.e., Narsi Road.
6. The relief of injunction is sought on the allegation of interference of defendants therein and their attempt to evict the revision petitioner from the property without following due process of law.
7. A written statement was filed on 05.09.2008 in the said suit by the 2nd defendant viz., B. Chinna Padmavathi, denying the allegations of the plaint. It was categorically stated in the written statement that the 1st defendant (1st respondent herein) is also sailing with the plaintiff (revision petitioner). In other words there is no conflict of interest between the defendants with respect to the schedule property and also there are no rival claims. In 2009, the 1st respondent filed O.S. No.20 of 2009 seeking recovery of possession of the schedule property admeasuring 461.25 Sq.yards
bearing Municipal No.1-4-88 (Old) corresponding to Municipal No.1-4-647 (New). In the schedule, the boundaries of the property was shown as follows:
East: Bodhan Nizamabad Road West: Plot No.6 North: Plot No.4 South: A portion of Plot No.6 of Pedda padmavathi.
8. A perusal of the description and boundaries mentioned in the O.S.No.40 of 2008 as well as in O.S. No.20 of 2009 would reveal the property described in both the suits is one and the same. 1st respondent realising the fact that she is entitled to only half share of the property, especially keeping in view of the Final Decree passed in O.S.No.35 of 1988 on 04.11.2003, sought the amendment of plaint restricting her claim to the half share of the property with corresponding changes in the boundaries. It is her claim by virtue of the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.35 of 1988 there is a clear identifiable property, ownership of which is not in dispute between herself and Smt. Chinna Padmavathi, who was 2nd defendant in O.S.No.40 of 2008. At any rate, to what extent of the property the 1st respondent is entitled to would have to be decided by the Court below in the suit while granting the final relief. The objection of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC prohibits granting of any amendment to the pleadings once after commencement of the trial. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshvprakeshdasji N. and others[1] , Amrtha Vs. G. Ravinder Reddy and another[2] , Rodda narsaioah Vs. Adla Raju @ Rajaiah[3] and Ayesha Rizwana Vs.
Mushtaq Ahmed[4] . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Usha Devi Vs. Rizwan Adhmad And Others[5] , Niyamat Ali Molla Vs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., and others[6] , Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others[7] , Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.,[8] Rameshkumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others[9] and Gajanan Jaikishna Joshi Vs. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar[10] .
9. I do not propose to deal with each of the judgments separately. Suffice it to say that the predominant judicial opinion is to the extent that the amendment of the pleading may be permitted at any stage as long as the same is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between parties. The only limitation which has been placed by the proviso, which was added by an amendment in 2002, is that after commencing of the trial such amendment should not be allowed unless the Court coming to the conclusion that the party seeking amendment was diligent and could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. Applying the said ratio one may look into the reasons stated by the 1st respondent for seeking amendment. On behalf of the 1st respondent (plaintiff), affidavit came to be filed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-plaintiff in support of the Interlocutory Application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The learned counsel had categorically stated in the said affidavit that it was a typographical error or accidental slip while pasting the plaint in the computer and
he came to realise the same when the same was pointed by the learned counsel for the defendants at the time of arguments. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the Advocate as it is a common practice in rural side, as the advocates are the one who draft the pleadings on behalf of their clients and the litigant public more often are really not conversant with the legal intricacies and totally rely on the knowledge and expertise of their advocates. Further, it is well settled that while granting the final relief the court is entitled to grant relief to the extent the case facts justifying. In the facts of the present case and considering the very admission made by the petitioner in O.S.No.40 of 2008 that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is entitled to half share in the property under dispute, one cannot say that the amendment sought for was not bona fide and justified. Further, the reasons stated by the plaintiff-1st respondent cannot be said to be bona fide and as the amendment do not alter and effect the rights of the defendants in any manner, the order of the learned Judge permitting the amendment does not call for any interference.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.
____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Date: 19.09.2014. Ssv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an amendment to pleadings admitting a half-share in property before trial under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permissible despite defendant's objection.
Whether the claimed reason of typographical error justifies the amendment under Section 151 CPC.
Whether the amendment alters the rights of the defendants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshvprakeshdasji N. and othersReferred¶31
Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another Vs. Swami Keshvprakeshdasji N. and others
Usha Devi Vs. Rizwan Adhmad And OthersReferred¶32
Usha Devi Vs. Rizwan Adhmad And Others
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Bodhan Filling Station
Smt. B. Padmavathi
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
