Allowed

Prakash Rao Dandgey v. Satyanarayan Dandgey

Telangana HC4 Sept 2014CRP/4145/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the court set aside the lower court's order allowing an impleaded party to amend the original plaintiff's pleadings. Ruling that Order VI Rule 17 CPC only permits a party to amend their own pleadings, the court directed the lower court to adjudge the suit solely on the original plaintiff's pleadings and disposed of infructuous cross revision petitions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the lower court directed to ignore amended pleadings and adjudicate on the original plaintiff's pleadings; cross revision petitions disposed as infructuous.

Prakash Rao Dandgey Vs Satyanarayan Dandgey — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*** THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY**

¶2

+ Civil Revision Petition No.4145 of 2010

¶3

% DT.04.09.2014

¶4

# Prakash Rao Dandgey

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

$ Satyanarayana Dandgey and others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

^ Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Prabhakar Sripada

¶10

! Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri D.L.N.Goud

¶11

for Sri Sridhar Lendalay

¶12

< Gist:

¶13

> Head note:

¶14

? Cases referred:

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶16

Civil Revision Petition No.4145 of 2010

¶17

Dated 0 4 th September, 2014

¶18

Between:

¶19

Prakash Rao Dandgey

¶20

…Petitioner And

¶21

Satyanarayana Dandgey and others

¶22

…Respondents

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Prabhakar Sripada

¶24

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri D.L.N.Goud

¶25

for Sri Sridhar Lendalay

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 16.07.2010, in I.A.No.607 of 2010 in O.S.No.984 of 2002, on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

¶29

I have heard Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D.L.N.Goud, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶30

The above-mentioned suit was filed by respondent No.2 for declaration that gift settlement deed, dated 06.02.2001, executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void and for consequential relief of cancellation of the said gift settlement deed. The relief of mandatory injunction against respondent No.3 for removal of the entries made in pursuance of the said gift settlement deed was also sought.

¶31

Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.607 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC and Rule 28 of A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 for his impleadment as plaintiff No.2 in the suit and for consequential relief of amendment of the plaint. This application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. The lower Court by the order under revision has allowed the said application.

¶32

A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that while justifying claiming of two reliefs in the same petition, namely, (1) impleadment of respondent No.1 as plaintiff No.2 and (2) amendment of the pleadings; the lower Court has observed that amendment of pleadings is a necessary consequence of impleadment of the party.

¶33

Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice as it stands now deals with seeking prayer for consequential amendment in applications filed

¶34

for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 and for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Therefore, the said Rule permits a party to seek the relief of amendment of pleadings also as a consequential relief in an application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC. But, the real issue on the facts of the case is whether respondent No.1, who is impleaded as plaintiff No.2, is entitled to amend the pleadings of the original plaintiff.

¶35

Order VI Rule 17 deals with amendment of pleadings. It reads as under:

¶36

“17.Amendment of pleadings:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

¶37

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” (Emphasis added)

¶38

From a perusal of the above-mentioned provision, it is clearly evident that the power of the Court to order amendment of the pleadings is confined to allowing a party to alter or amend his own pleadings. This provision does not confer power on the Court to allow an impleaded party to amend or alter the pleadings of another party already on record. Unfortunately, the lower Court has totally lost sight of this aspect and erroneously permitted respondent No.1 to amend the pleadings of the original plaintiff.

¶39

For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside. The lower Court is directed to ignore the amended pleadings contained in the plaint and adjudicate the suit only on the basis of the pleadings of the original plaintiff i.e., respondent No.2 herein.

¶40

The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.

¶41

As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition,

¶42

C.R.P.M.P.Nos.5515 of 2010 and 1361of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶43

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶44

04^th September, 2014 Note: LR copies to be marked. (b/o) VGB

Prakash Rao Dandgey v. Satyanarayan Dandgey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Rao Dandgey v. Satyanarayan Dandgey

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

Sri Goti Venkateswar Rao, Vs Smt. G. Laxmi

P Krishna Vs P Prakash

Mr.D.S.Rao Vs Mrs.Rahbav Fathima

Gajjala Janardhan Reddy Vs Food Corporation of India Employees

K.Yogender Reddy, Vs Smt. K.Usha Rani

K.Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Jamma Sri Ramulu