Dismissed

Shaik Subhani v. Sagamreddy Nagamani

Telangana HC27 Mar 2014CRP/738/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to quash the lower court's rejection of an application to amend the written statement. The High Court held that allowing such an amendment would be a subterfuge to drag suit proceedings given the plaintiff's evidence admitted post-dating endorsements which should have been challenged via cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed and C.R.P.M.P.No.1007 of 2014 was disposed of as infructuous.

Shaik Subhani Vs Sagamreddy Nagamani — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

+CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.738 of 2014

¶3

%Dated 27-03-2014

# Shaik Subhani

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

$ Sagamreddy Nagamani .. Respondent

¶8

! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. C.M.R. Velu

¶9

^ Counsel for the respondent: --

¶10

>HEAD NOTE: ? CITATIONS: 2011 (5) ALT 562

¶11

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

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.738 of 2014

¶13

Dated: 27.03.2014

¶14

Between: Shaik Subhani .. Petitioner and Sagamreddy Nagamani .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. C.M.R. Velu Counsel for the Respondent: --

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This civil revision petition is filed against order dated 18.02.2014 in I.A.No.817 of 2013 in O.S.No.132 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala.

¶18

The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,04,462/- on the foot of two promissory notes dated 09.09.2005 and 24.09.2005 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement, wherein he has denied execution of the two promissory notes by specifically pleading that they were rank forgery. After framing of the issues, the respondent-plaintiff adduced her evidence and when the suit was posted for the evidence of the petitioner-defendant, he has filed the above-mentioned I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for permission to amend the written statement. He has pleaded in his affidavit filed in support of the application that during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, he has noticed that the suit pronotes were materially altered, that on the pronote dated 09.09.2005, he has found endorsement dated 31.08.2008 pertaining to purported part payment, that he has also found suit pronote dated 24.09.2005 materially altered in column No.12 and that the signatures of the attestors on both pronotes and also the signatures under the part payments on the backside of the suit pronotes were found fabricated. The petitioner further pleaded that he has not taken the said plea in the written statement out of ignorance of law and that, therefore, he filed the present application for amendment of the written statement for incorporating the said pleas. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition. On considering the respective pleadings of the parties, the lower Court

¶19

has dismissed the application for amendment. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-defendant filed this revision petition.

¶20

Mr. C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in order to do substantial justice between the parties, the lower Court ought to have allowed the petitioner’s application. He further submitted that under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., a fair amount of discretion is vested in the courts for ordering amendment and that rejection of the application for amendment mainly on the ground of delay will result in failure of justice.

¶21

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. permits amendment of pleadings by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. However, the proviso to the said provision prohibits such application being allowed after the commencement of trial, 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.

¶23

In Narne Estates Private Ltd. V. N. Gopal Naidu^[1] , this Court had an occasion to deal with the object behind insertion of this proviso. It was observed therein as thus:

¶24

“…This proviso is inserted obviously to ensure that the parties will not unduly prolong the litigation and they are diligent in pursuing the litigation. Therefore, an application for amendment of pleadings filed after commencement of the trial needs to be considered keeping in view the above salutary purpose for which the proviso is inserted.”

¶25

Let me now consider whether the petitioner is able to satisfy the requirement of proving before the Court that he could not have raised the matter, which is sought to be raised by way of amendment, before the commencement of trial, in spite of his due diligence.

¶26

In para III (c) of the plaint, the respondent-plaintiff inter alia pleaded as under:

¶27

“….that subsequently the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay her two pronotes debt due personally and through elders. After that the Defendant paid Rs.4,000/- each to the plaintiff on two pronotes for part payments on 31-08-2008 and endorsed the part payments on the back of the two suit pronotes and acknowledged the two suit pronotes by the Defendant. Subsequently the Defendant did not pay any amount to the Plaintiff on demand and postponing the same on some pretext or another….”

¶28

In the written statement, the petitioner averred that he never executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time, that he never made part payments under the suit promissory notes and that he never endorsed on the backside of the two promissory notes. He has also specifically pleaded that the signatures contained in the promissory notes and payment endorsements are not his signatures and that the suit promissory notes are rank forgery. He has also stated that he has not received any amount under the two suit promissory notes at any point of time. By these pleadings, the petitioner specifically denied the execution of suit promissory notes as well as making of the two alleged endorsements by him besides denying his signatures on the suit promissory notes and alleging that

¶29

the suit pronotes are rank forgeries. In the face of these averments, this Court is unable to comprehend as to the necessity of the petitioner to file an additional written statement with respect to the alleged endorsements and the purported alterations. If the petitioner has noticed during the cross-examination of the respondent that there were any material alterations at column No.12 and insertion of the signatures of the attestors before filing of the suit, nothing would have prevented him from eliciting these aspects from the evidence of P.W.1 in her cross-examination. The petitioner is silent as to whether any attempt was made by him to elicit answers on these features from P.W.1. In addition to cross-examining P.W.1 on these aspects, the petitioner has an opportunity of adducing his oral evidence wherein he can also bring out the features, which he allegedly noticed during the cross-examination of P.W.1. On these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed for amendment of written statement is a mere ploy or subterfuge evidently to drag on the suit proceedings. Though the lower Court has dismissed the application for different reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek amendment of the written statement.

¶30

For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶31

As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.1007 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶32

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27^th March, 2014 IBL L.R. Copies.

¶33

[1] 2011 (5) ALT 562

Shaik Subhani v. Sagamreddy Nagamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Subhani v. Sagamreddy Nagamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-04-2012 to DT.30-09-2012.

Sri Paresh Dhanji Chheda, Vs M/s.Shree Gouraavi Plastic Ltd.

The Official Liquidator Vs DT.01-04-2012 to DT.30-09-2012.

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Pagilla Guruvaiah

united India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. J.Gopamma

United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Mir Arif Ali , Mir Asif Ali