Dismissed

Polavarapu Ganga Babu, v. Rayapureddy Appalanaidu

Telangana HC9 Sept 2016CRP/4269/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the allowance of an application to amend a plaint's date. Holding that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, the Court found it improper to interfere with the lower Court's discretion without a judicial finding on due diligence. The incidental petition for interim relief was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; incidental petition for interim relief disposed of as infructuous.

Polavarapu Ganga Babu, Vs Rayapureddy Appalanaidu — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.4269 of 2016

¶3

Date: 09.09.2016

¶4

Between:

¶5

Polavarapu Ganga Babu

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

and
Rayapureddy Appalanaidu and 2 others
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.TV.Sridevi

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

CVNR, J CRP.No.4269 of 2016 Dt: 09.09.2016

¶11

¶12

O r d e r :

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 06-08-2016, in IA.No.372 of 2016 in OS.No.87 of 2012, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, whereby he has allowed respondent No.1- plaintiff to amend the plaint by replacing the date “24-06-2012 (Sunday)” with “26-12-2016 (Friday)”.

¶14

I have heard Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

¶15

Respondent No.1 has filed the afore-mentioned suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner.

¶16

In Paragraph III (c) of the plaint, respondent No.1 has

¶17

averred that on 22-06-2012 (Sunday) at about 10.00 am., when he was doing agriculture work in the plaint schedule

¶18

land, the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are arrayed as defendants, trespassed into the same, removed the cement poles planted thereon and tried to dispossess him therefrom.

¶19

CVNR, J CRP.No.4269 of 2016 Dt: 09.09.2016

¶20

¶21

The petitioner has filed a written statement wherein he

¶22

has denied having ever interfered with the alleged possession of respondent No.1. He has further pleaded that having purchased the suit schedule land from the father of respondent No.1- plaintiff, he is in possession of the same and that therefore, the question of his interference does not arise.

¶23

Respondent No.1 has filed the afore-mentioned IA for amendment of the said averment by substituting the date “24-06-2012 (Sunday)” with “26-12-2016 (Friday)”. This Application was allowed by the lower Court.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the petitioner forcefully submitted that once the trial is commenced, the Court is bound to be satisfied that in spite of due diligence shown by respondent No.1/plaintiff, he could not seek amendment before commencement of trial; that in the affidavit filed in support of the Application, no such averment has been made; and that the Court below also failed to render any finding on this aspect.

¶25

CVNR, J CRP.No.4269 of 2016 Dt: 09.09.2016

¶26

¶27

Undoubtedly, once the trial is commenced, the discretion of the Court to amend the pleadings is restricted under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial, the same cannot be allowed.

¶28

In my opinion, unless the petitioner suffered prejudice on account of the amendment, the discretion exercised by the lower Court cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the question in the present case is, whether any prejudice is caused to the petitioner by the amendment. If I understand the pleadings of the parties in their right perspective, it is the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner has interfered with his possession. This averment is denied by the petitioner. So, it hardly matters whether such interference was alleged by the plaintiff on 24-06-2012 or 2606-2012. It is not as if the petitioner has been asserting that the alleged event has taken place on 24-06-2012 and not on 22-06-2012. On the contrary, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that on neither of the aforesaid two dates, he has

¶29

CVNR, J CRP.No.4269 of 2016 Dt: 09.09.2016

¶30

¶31

caused interference. Therefore, by allowing the proposed amendment, the nature and character of the suit or its outcome would not be changed. Whether the alleged interference was made on 22-06-2012 or 24-06-2012, the burden still lies on the plaintiff to prove the same. Hence, in the absence of any prejudice to the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court even without there being a finding by the lower Court that in spite of exercise of due diligence by respondent

¶32

No.1- plaintiff, he could not seek amendment of the plaint earlier.

¶33

For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶34

As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP.No.5564 of 2016, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶35

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶36

Dt: 9^th September, 2016 lur

¶37

CVNR, J CRP.No.4269 of 2016 Dt: 09.09.2016

¶38

Polavarapu Ganga Babu, v. Rayapureddy Appalanaidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polavarapu Ganga Babu, v. Rayapureddy Appalanaidu

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 Palisetti Satish Kumar Vs State Bank of India

B.Anil Kumar Reddy, Vs Mrs.Janaki, I.A.S.

Botta Appa Rao Vs Vadlamuri Shyam Siva Rao

Sri Chinthala Lakhmi Narayana Murthy, Vs Sri Velamala Vasudeva Rao (Died)

Polavarapu Ganga Babu Vs Rayapureddy Appalanaidu

The Trust Association of the Convention of the Baptist Vs Dasari Samuel