Dismissed

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) v. Edamakari Laxma Reddy

Telangana HC14 Dec 2021CRP/267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the order dismissing the application to amend survey numbers in a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court held that the amendment did not alter the suit's nature as the trial had not commenced and justice warranted it, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) Vs Edamakari Laxma Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A,VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 267 OF 2021

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 ol the Gonstitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 10-12-2020 in l.A. No. 123 ol 2020 in O.S. No. 5 ot 2020 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Bodhan.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . The Nizam Sugars Limited (NSL), Represented by its Authorized Signatory Ramesh Babu

¶9

The Deputy Manager, Nizam Sugars Limited, (lncharge Core Committee), Shakkarnagar, Bodhan Town, District Nizamabad.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ Respondents / Defendants

¶11

AND

¶12

Edamakari Laxma Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged 50 years, D. No.5-89, Bhulaxmi Camp, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/ Petitioner / Plaintiff

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^{grant stay} all further^proceedings in Suit OS. No. 5/2020, on the file of the Senior Civil^Judge, Bodhan, pending disposal of CRP No. /2021

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. VASUDEVA REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. DURGA^PRASAD

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BI E SRI JUSTICE^{A. VENKATESHWARA REI)DY}

¶21

C.R.P.No.267 of²⁰²¹

¶22

Q@'

¶23

The pet tioners/defendants^{have filed this Civil Revision} Petition under . \rticle 227 of^{the Constitution of India'aggrieved by} the order dated 10.12.2020ⁱⁿ IA^{No.123 of 2020 in OS No.5 of 2020} on the file of th^: Senior Civil Judge's^{Court at Bodhan.}

¶24

The plair:iff has filed the said IA No.123^{of 2020, under Order-} VI, Rule-l7 o C.P.C. requesting the Court below^{to permit the} plaintiff for am :ndment of suit survey numbers from 324 and 704^to 689, 691, 692 693 and 694 pu-t and to make^{consequential} amendments wl erever necessary. Having considered the rival clairns made by the l,laintiff and the defendants, the Court^belowhas accepted the rer uest of the plaintiff and^permitted him^{to arnend the} plaint to replact survey Nos.324 and 704 with Strrvey Nos.689, 691, 692,693 and 69 I part.

¶25

Aggrieve< by the said order dated 10.12.2020, the^present civil revision petitior is preferred by the petitioners/defendants alleging that the Court be low ought to have appreciated the fact that^{plaint was} filed in the year 2020 incorporating survey Nos.324^{and 70'l as suit} schedule prope ty, sought for a declaration and^{consequential} injunction, therr after filed the amendment application seeking^to amend survey nr mbers from 324 and 704 to 689,⁶⁹¹ ,^{692,693 and} 694 part, which ilters the nature of the suit^{itself'. The Courtbelow.}

¶26

¶27

Page 2 of5

¶28

AVR.J CRP N0.267 of202l

¶29

also failed to appreciate^{that as per the RevenueDivisional Officer,} Bodhan, the land in Survey^{No.324admeasuring Ac.6.20 guntas is} allotted to different^persons.

¶30

Heard leamed counsel for the^{petitioners/defendantsand the} respondent/plainti ff.

¶31

The application in IA No.l23 of 20?0^{is filed underOrder-VI,} Rule-l7 CPC in OS No.5 of^{2020. The original suit is fited for} declaration of title and for^{perpetual injunctionin respect of the suit} schedule property. It^was filed^{on 01.06.2020. Later, this application} in IA No.l23 of 2020 was filed^{on 29.06.2020i.e., withinone month} from the date of filing the original^{suit,this application was filed. It is} nobody's case that the written^{statement of the defendantsis filedor} the issues settled or that the^{trial hascommencedin the originalsuit} and that the proviso of Rule-l7 of^{Order-VICPC comes into} operation.

¶32

From a perusal of the material available^{on record, it is clear} that the petitioners herein^{who are the defendants in the OriginalSuit} No.5 of 2020 did not file their^{written statement. As stated above, the} original suit was filed on 01.06.2020^{and the applicationin IANo'123} of 2020 was filed on 29.06.2020. Having noticed^{that thereis no such} land in Survey Nos.324 and 704, this application^was filed. On studied examination of the order impugned, it is found that the plaintiff has purchased Ac. 15.17 guntas, out of Survey Nos.324 and

¶33

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

AVR.J Cl(P N0,267 of²⁰²¹

¶36

704 of Narsapur^{Village, Bodhan Mandal.Out of it, the defendants} M/s.Nizam Sugr^{rs Limitedhas only executed saledeed fbr Ac'6'01} guntas in Survey No.321^{and failed to executethe sale deedin respect} of land in Surve;^No.324.

¶37

7 . Thereafter the^{plaintiff has filedWP No'I 0l 5 I of 2001 before} this Court and^{,,btained orders dated27.02.2008' As per the said} orders, the defen^{lant No.1was directedto allot undisputedalternative} land to the^plain iff^{or to refund the amount paid by him. as the first} defendant-Nizan Sugars^{Limited has no title in respect of Ac'6'12} guntas of land n Survey No.324'^{Accordingly.the plaintiffwas} permitted to part cipate in the^{public auction conductedat a later point} of time in respet t of^{the land in Survey Nos'689,691, 692, 693and} 694 part. In the said^{auction,on behalf of the plaintiff,his brother} participated as t re plaintiff^was sick^{on 24.04.2001and become} successful bidde'in^{respectof Ac.0.21 guntas of land in Survey} No.683 and Ac.! .05^{guntasin Survey No.704. It was onlyallowed} pursuant to the d rections of^{this Court in WP No'8059 of 200 L With} this, it is clear^{th tt the suit schedule propertyof Ac. I 5 ' 1 7 guntas lies} in Survey Nos.6^i9, 691,692,693^{and 694 part,but not in Survey} Nos.324 and 704^{It appears,the ptaintifT hasalso filedproceedings} of the Revenue I^{ivisional officer,Bodhan dated 31.01 .2002wherein} it is clearty notet^{by the RevenueDivisionalOfficer that the land of} Ac.6.20^guntas ir^{Survey No.324is allotted to various persons'}

¶38

raBE { ur a

¶39

AVR.J CRP No.267 of202l

¶40

Thus, viewed from any angle,^{the proposed amendment will not} alter or change the nature of the suit.^{The suit is not at the fag end of} the trial. The subject matter is required^{to be determinedon merits} after fuIl length trial. Since the defendants^{are yet to file their written} statement, they are at liberty to^put forth all^{the defences available to} them in their written statement.^{The power} to^{grant amendment to} pleadings is only intended to serve the ends^{ofjustice,more so in the} present case, as the application for amendment is filed^withinone month of filing the suit, before the defendants^{filed theirwritten} statement, hence, it should not be^{govemed by anynarrow or} techr-rical lim itations.

¶41

9, In such circumstances, as the suit is at the beginning^{stage itself} and the written statement of the defendants^{is yet to be fi1ed,issues} not settled, the plaintiff has^purchased the^{property from Nizam} Sugars Limited in two survey^{numbers and in spite of receipt of sale} consideration, possession was not delivered^{in respect of the land in} Survey No.324 and that the^proceedings of^{the Revenue Divisional} Officer, Bodhan would also show that^{this land in Survey No.324is} allotted four individuals and the defendants^{have no such land with} them in Survey No.324, the plaintiff is entitled^{to bring the proposed} amendments.

¶42

The plaintiff has filed the Writ Petition No.10l5l^{of 2001 and} as per the orders dated 27.02.2008, he is^{pennitted to participate in the}

¶43

AVR.J CRP No.267 of202l

¶44

7 I

¶45

Page 5 of5

¶46

auction. Th plaintiff through his brother^{has participatedin the} auction in rer pect of the land in Survey^{Nos.689, 691} ,^{692,693 and} 694 part. Pur;uant to the said auction, the Nizarn Surgars^Limitedhas delivered the physical possession of the land^{purchased by the} plaintiff and ccordingly, the plaintiff is in possession of the landⁱⁿ Survey Nos.( 89, 691 , 692, 693 and 694 parl and not in^Survey Nos.324 and 704. If any such pleadings are amended at this^stage before fi1in1 written statement, settlement of issues^and commenceme rt of the trial, it would helpful to the parties and to the Court to dete mine the real dispute between the parties. Therefore. viewed fi'onr r ny angle, I do not find any irregularity or .iurisdictional error committ d by the Court below in allowing the plaintif'f to amend the suit sched rle survey numbers as 689, 691, 692,693 and 694 part in place of Sur vey Nos.324 anC704.

¶47

In the rt sult, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However. there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any

¶48

pending in thir appeal, shall stand dismissed.

¶49

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶50

¶51

SEC:TION OFFICER

¶52

To 1 The Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad^Dist. 2 One CC to SRl. N VASUDEVA^{REDDYAdvocate} IOPUC] One CC to SRl.⁽ DURGA PRASAD^Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies 5 One Spare Copl KUL TR \ v

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 411212021

ORDER

CRP.No.267 ot 2021

-i +6- I t
2$rEC

DISMISSING THE CRP

WITHOUT COSTS

*(,,'

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) v. Edamakari Laxma Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) v. Edamakari Laxma Reddy

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

Mrs. Ann Catherine Helen Decruz Vs Mr. T.Manipal Reddy

Kunja Bhaskar Vs Korsa Mallaiah

Nalladi Manasa , Danda Manasa Vs Nalladi Vijay Kumar

Jeedipally Laxmi [Died] Medak Dist and 2 Others Vs Chelmeda Narayana, Medak Dist and 2 Others

Smt. Rehana Begum Vs Shaik Samad

The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl) Vs Edamakanti Laxma Reddy