The Hon'ble Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to amend the written statement at the stage of appeal under Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. The Court held that the amendment was untenable due to the stage of proceedings and lack of exceptional circumstances. Permanent
The miscellaneous petition is disposed of.
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
C.R.P. No.2743 of 2014
ORDER:
The respondent filed O.S.No.2463 of 2007 against the petitioner, in the Court of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction from the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that the petitioner is the tenant, and though notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued, the petitioner did not vacate the premises. The suit was opposed by the petitioner by raising several grounds, including the one, as to the lack of jurisdiction in the trial Court. The basis was that the rent for the premises is less than the limits, stipulated by the Government, in exercise of power under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’).
The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed A.S.No.154 of 2012 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In that appeal, he filed I.A.No.55 of 2014, under Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him to amend the written-statement, by adding paragraph 5(a), after paragraph 5 in the written-statement. His attempt was to raise the plea as to lack of jurisdiction in the trial Court, by referring to the relevant provisions of the Act. The application was opposed by the respondent. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the I.A., through its order dated 04-07-2014. Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner does not dispute that he is the tenant of the respondent. The suit was filed for eviction of the petitioner, by referring to the relevant facts, and it has been decreed. A perusal of the judgment in the suit discloses that the trial Court framed not only a specific issue, touching the question of jurisdiction, but also the one, relating to the quantum of rent. The petitioner is already pursuing the remedy of appeal. However, he wanted to amend the written-statement, at the stage of appeal.
The application filed by the petitioner is not tenable for two reasons: The first is regarding the stage. The proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C., virtually prohibits amendment of the pleadings after the commencement of the trial. It is only in exceptional cases, where the party intending to amend the pleadings satisfies the Court, with the facts, which are sought to be supplemented through amendment and could not be ascertained at the relevant point of time, in spite of his efforts, in that behalf, that the possibility may exist for permitting the amendment of the pleadings, at a later stage. No such facts were pleaded, in the instant case. The second is about the contents of the proposed amendment. The petitioner wanted to draw the attention of the lower Appellate Court,
to certain provisions of the Act. For that purpose, it is not necessary to amend the pleadings. The other part of the proposed amendment, such as quantum of rent, was already the subject-matter of adjudication before the trial Court. Therefore, the I.A., filed by the petitioner, for amendment of the written-statement,
was totally untenable; and the lower Appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter.
The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt.01-09-2014.
KO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of written statement at the stage of appeal is maintainable under Rule 17 of Order VI CPC.
Whether the pleaded facts justify permitting amendment at a later stage despite the general prohibition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
