Allowed

Kanne Anjaiah v. Sama Amruthamma

Telangana HC7 Dec 2021CRP/180/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition allowed. The High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint to rectify typographical errors and add specific CPC provisions related to mortgage suits, holding that no fresh cause of action was introduced and no prejudice would occur to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to carry out the proposed amendments in the plaint and delete irrelevant references.

Kanne Anjaiah Vs Sama Amruthamma — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

ctVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO: 180 OF 2020

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated.31l12l2019 passed in l.A No. 1333 of 2019 in o.s.No. 103 of 20 16 on the fite of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

5nl"-]1ry9"ll,^{S/o. Durgaiah,.Age.61 years, Occ. Trade, Rl/o. H.No. 6_3-598/1} , Krsnannagar, karimnagar District

¶9

.PETITIONERY PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Sama Amruthamma, Wo. Vyk-untam, Age. 79 years, Occ. Household, Ryo. H.No. S- 3-293, Ashoknagar, Localitybf Karimna!ar Town, KZrimnagar OGtrici'

¶12

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶13

lA NO: 'l OF 2 020

¶14

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased ro grant stay of all further proceedings in o.s.No. 103 of 2016 on the fire of the principar District Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above CRp.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent; pAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I I

¶19

HON'I LE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWTRA REDDY c VIL REVISION PETITION No.18O OF 2O2O

¶20

ORDERT

¶21

Hear d learned counsel for revision petitioner Sri

¶22

J.Sreeniva la Rao. Learned Counsel for respondent called absent. Ev :n as per proceedings dt.03.09.202 1 also there was no represet rtation.

¶23

This livil Revision Petition is filed against the order in IA.No.1333 of 2019 in OS.No.1O3 of 2016, dated 3t.t2.2Otg on the file of the learned Prl.District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein, th: application under Order VI, Rule 17 CpC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice iiled by the petitioner/p aintiff was dismissed. The proposecl amendment is only to re, tify the typographical mistake as the original suit is filed for recovery of money based on mortgage, but, inadvertentl.. the relevant provisions of CIrC are not mentioned. ' hus, requested to permit the plaintiff ro amend the subject c rlumn in the plaint by mentioning/adding Order 34, Rule-l tr 6 CPC, similarly at paragraph 7 of the plaint, Section 20 or the A.P.Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act^may be replaced vith Section 31(1) of the A.P.Court^Fee and^Suit Valuation Act; and in prayer column decree may^{be replaced} with the prelminary decree under Order 34, Rute-l to 6^of CPC, and in prayer (b) column:the order 21, Rule 63^{of CPC"} may be delete 1.

¶24

¶25

I have carefully perused the order impugned passed by the learned Prl.District Judge, Karimnagbr, with the proposed amendment. No such fresh cause of action is introduced nor any new facts are brought on record. Though the suit is at advanced stage of trial and recording of evidence is concluded, partieS were aware of the fact that it is a mortgage suit and not a simple money suit and that with the proposed amendment no prejudice would cause to the respondent/defendant. On the other hand this amendment is required to determine the real controversy between the parties. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and it is quite essential to resolve the issue as the suit is based on mortgage.

¶26

In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 31. 12.2O1g in IA.No.1333 of 2019 in OS.No. 103 of 2016 is set aside and the petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to carry out the proposed amendments as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶28

cl ser'l

¶29

SD/. M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qo \ SECTION OFFICER

¶30

To,

¶31

The Principal District Judge at Karimnagar . 2. One CC to Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sd pawan Kumar Aganrral, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies on" Spare Copy aof CJ ,^--

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711212021

t-lEi;lAl-e
(
:r'L
c
1S Jftl'l?-$P- 'l
2',

¶36

ORDER

¶37

CRP.No.180^{of 2020}

¶38

ALLOWING^{THr: C'R'P}

¶39

L
071
I ,^)2,1
7

Kanne Anjaiah v. Sama Amruthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanne Anjaiah v. Sama Amruthamma

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

Rachuri Ramesh Babu Vs a.Praveen Kumar

Maheshwari Vs Sayani Venkatamma , Vankammo

Denchanala Uma Devi Vs Denchanala Hari Prasad

Vallambhatla Poornachandra Rao Vs Smt.Thorpunuri Laxmi Narsamma,Laxmamma

Smt Bejagam Swathi, Vs Kanukuntla Kommalu

Sanjiv K. Gupta Vs Sri Manepally Ramarao And Another