Dismissed

Vadde Varalaxmi v. Gandham Veerabhadram

Telangana HC10 Dec 2021CRP/284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging an order permitting amendment of pleadings to correct a registered document number. Holding no prejudice was caused as the suit property schedule remained unchanged, the Court dismissed the revision and confirmed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 19.01.2021 in IA No. 3 of 2020 was confirmed.

Vadde Varalaxmi Vs Gandham Veerabhadram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER IWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 284 OF 202'l

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2021 in l.A. No. 3 of 2020 in O.S. No. 145 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women -cum- Vlll Additional District Judge at Khammam.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vadde Varalaxmi, W/o Rama Rao, Aged 5'1 Years, Occ. House Wrife, R/o H.No. 2-2341A, R.T.C. Colony, Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶9

Padiloju Sudhakrishna, S/o Vijayabhaskar, Aged 45 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No. 6-3-59, Bank Colony, Khammam.

¶10

Samudrala Srilaxmi, W/o Venkateshwarlu, Aged 58 Years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o H.No. 4-2-14lA, Sri Nagar Colony, Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶11

Ailuri Padmavathi, W/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 65 Years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o H. No. 4-2-1213, Srinagar Colony, Rotary Nagbr, Khammam.

¶12

Shaik Jafarmiya, S/o Janimiya, Aged 55 Years, Occ.Business, Fi/o Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶13

Parupalli Naggshwar Rao, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Srinagar Colony U, Rotqry Nagar, Khammam.

¶14

Kandala Vikasa Reddy, S/o Srinivasa Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ. Business, F/o H.No. 7-3-1613, Dwaraka Nagar, Khammam.

¶15

...Petitioners/Respondents-Defendants 1, i, 6, 7,9, 9 & 11

¶16

AND

¶17

Gandham Veerabhadram, S/o Pattabhi Ramaiah, Aged 82 years, Occ. Nil, Fl/o Gattaigudem Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammad Districi.

¶18

Yellampally-Ravinder, S/o Subta Rao, Age. Adult, Occ. Employee, FJo H. No.9-2-120, Old Club Road, Khammam.

¶19

Marella Satyanarayana, S/o Appaiah, Age. Adult, Occ. Employee, Ft/o Annarugudem, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District.

¶20

Aadiraju. Venkatanarasimha Rao, S/o Koteshwar Rao, Age. Adult, Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No. 4-2-4011, Srinagar Colony, Rotary Nagar, Khimmam District.

¶21

Bhagam Venkateshwar Rao, S/o Narayana, Age. Adult, Occ. Business, R/o Muttapuram, Nelakondapalli, Khammah.

¶22

Joneboina Srinvasa Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Age. Adult, Occ. Business, Ryo H. No. 10- 197, Conductors Colony, Sarapaka, Burgampahad, Khammam. (Respondents No. 2 to 6 aie not necessary'[o thiis eetition)

¶23

...Respondents/Respondents-Defendants No.2, 3, 4,,10 & 12

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶25

Petition under Section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to suspend the

¶26

,impugned Order dater 19-01-2021 in l.A. No. 3 of 2020 in O.S No 145 ol 2012 on the file of the Specir I Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Wor r,:n-Cum-Vlll Additional District Judge At l(hammam.

¶27

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶28

Between:

¶29

Gandham Veera >radram, S/o Pattabhi Ramaiah, Aged 82^years, Occ. Nil,^Rl/o Gattaigudem Vill r1;e, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District.

¶30

...Petitioner

¶31

AND

¶32

Vadde Varalaxm, W/o Rama Rao, Aged 51 Years, Occ. House Wrife, Fi/o H.No. 2-2341A, R.T.C.^, blony, Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶33

Padiloju Sudhak ir;hna, S/o Vijayabhaskar, Aged 45 Years, Occ. Business,^FYo H. No. 6-3-59, Br nk Colony, Khammam.

¶34

Samudrala Srila: nri, W/o Venkateshwarlu, Aged 58 Years, Occ. Housewife,^R/o H.No. 4-2-14lA, : ri Nagar Colony, Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶35

Ailuri Padmavatf , W/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 65 Years,,Jcc. Housewife, Fl/o H. No. 4-2-1,13, Srinagar Colony, Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶36

Shaik Jafarmiya, S;/o Janimiya, Aged 55 Years, Occ.Business,^Pr'o Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶37

Parupalli Nages r',var Rao, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, Aged^a5 Years, Occ. Business, Rl/o Sr ragar Colony U, Rotary Nagar, Khammam.

¶38

Kandala Vikasa Ftr:ddy, S/o Srinivasa Reddy, Aged 60 Years Occ. Business,^Fl/o H.No. 7-3-1613, I vraraka Nagar, Khammam.

¶39

. . .Responde nt's/Petitioners

¶40

Yellampally Ravir cler, S/o Subba Rao, Age. Adult, Occ. Emplcyee, Fl/o H. No.9-2-1rC, Old Club Road, Khammam.

¶41

Marella Satyanar lrana, S/o Appaiah, Age. Adult, Occ. Employee R/o Annarugudem, T. I ada Mandal, Khammam District.

¶42

l0.Aadiraju Venkata r;rrasimha Rao, S/o Koteshwar Rao. Age. ACult, Occ. Business, Rl/o H. No. 4-2-4(^t1, Srinagar Colony, Rotary Nagar, Khammam District.

¶43

'1 1. Bhagam Venkate ;hwar Rao, S/o Narayana, Age. Adult, Occ. Business, Fl/o Muttapuram, Nek kondapalli, Khammam.

¶44

'12.Joneboina Srinva;a Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Age. Adult, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 10-197 , Conduct< rs Colony, Sarapaka, Burgampahad, Khammam. (Respondents 8 :o 12 not necessary panies to this petition)

¶45

...Respondent's/Respondents

¶46

Petition under S rr:tion 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in sup rcrt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 1510412021 passed in CRP No. 284 of 2021 in the interest of^justice.

¶47

Counsel for the Petitior,ers: SRI PASAM SRINIVASA REDDY

¶48

Counsel for the Respor dent No.1: SRI N. KRISHNA SUMANTH

¶49

Counsel for the Respor dent Nos.2 to 6: not necessary parties

¶50

The Court made the fol owing: ORDER

¶51

¶52

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. VBNKATESHWARAREDDY} CRP No.28.{ of 2021

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

The petitioners/respondents/defendant^{Nos.l,5,6,7,8,9 and ll} have filed this Civil Revision^{Petitionunder Arlicle227 of the Constitution} of India assailing the order^{dated19.01 2021 in IA No.3 of 2020 in OS} No.l45 ol 2012 on the file of^{the Special SessionsJudge for fast tracking} the cases relating to atrocities^{against rvorten-cum-Vlll Additional District} Judge. Khammam.

¶55

Z. The said IA No.3 of 2020 filed under Order-Vl.^{Rule-17 r/w Sec.l5l} CPC was allowed and the^{plaintill is permitted to amendthe plaint by} conecting rcgistered document^number as^{"39'74 of2012. dated} 06.09.2011" in place of document^{number as "1097 of 2012" dated} 21.01.2012 at paragraph Nos. I and^{7 of the plaint.}

¶56

As per the proceedings dated 15.01.2021,^{thisCourt has directedthe} trial Court to proceed^rvith the arguments.^{However,it shall not pronounce} the finaljudgment till further orders.^{Thus. no stay is grantedthis Court.}

¶57

The learned counsel fbr the^{petitioners/defendantsseeks to submit} that on intrr'rducing the ncrv docutnent^{numberby the plaintifl'.pre.iudice} rvill be caused to the respondents/de lendants and that the^{evidence on both} sides is completed. At this^{stagc.the plaintitTcannotbe permitted to amend} the pleadings introducing the neu'^{document nut-nberin placeof registered} document No.l097 ol20l2, dated2l.0l.2012. /

¶58

AVlt..l L RP \o.lli.l ol 2(): i

¶59

¶60

The learred counsel tbr the petitioners/de t'endants relied on the principles laid in Chander kanta bansnl v. Rajinder Singh Anantlt, rvhereas the leamed cou lsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the principles laid in i) Secretary, ,)epartment of Horticuhure, Chandigarh and another v. Raghu Raf and ii)^y"t,P. Emporium, Hytterabad antl another v. TCI Finance Lttl., Secunderahad. Ihe respondenVplaintit'f has also flled a detailed counter. vide USR No.3(483 of 2021. dated 18.11.2021.

¶61

[t is true that the said application uncier Order-Vl. I..ule- l7 CPC is filcd at the fhg end of the trial aficr conclusion ol the cvrdcncc on both sides. But, atie; tiling ot'the re'"'ision pctition. it appears lA Nos.8 and 9 ol2021 were also tlled.^'l he suit rvas reopened. PW.I uas recalled lbr the purpose of cros -exarnination on the aspcct of'amcnthrent ol number ol sale deed and di tr: ol -sale dc-ed and that appiications rr cre aiso allo,wed on 12.04.2021 .l hu . tho proposed amenclnent rvhich rvas allori:d introducing the correct docr rrent number and date in the pleadings is canied out. consequently the plaintifls evidence $,as reopened and PW.1 w,as recalled. He gave evidenc : r,i'ith ref'erence to amended registered docuntent nurnber and date. Further nore" in view of the mere change o1'documt:nt number as "3974 of 2012 d red 06.09.2011" in place of documenr No.i09'; of 2012 dated 21.01.2011 at paragraph Nos.l and 7 of the plaint. no prejudice would cause to tl c petitioners/defendants. as the boundaries and extent olschedule of propr rty is not changed. ln addition to it. this docurnent u'as filed along u'ith t, t: plaint. but in the plcadings the rvrong nunrber is t)'ped.

,* ruor r. rrro

2 lzooa; r: sc :e5

'^{2otz(:) eLo : tg}

AVR.J cRP No 284 ol l0ll

¶66

l'he defendants did not^{takeany- obiection either in the writtenstatemenl.or} in the cross-examination^{of PW.1 wherein the wrong document numberis} typed.

¶67

'7 . In the circutnstances. such amendment^{was requiredfor determining} the real dispute between^{the parties. Further, the proposed amendmentwas} carried, parties have aoted upon and^{no stay was grantedby this Court' On} the other hand. this Court.^{as per the proceedings dated 15.04'2021.} directed the Court below to^{proceedwiththc trialandother consequential} steps. Resultantly. suit^{r.vasamendedto the extent indicatedabove,} plaintiff s evidcncc s as reopened.^PW. I^{u as recalled and he gave} additional evidcncc^r.vith rel'erence to^{correct registered documentnumber} as amended in the plaint at^{paragraph Nos. I and 7. In additionto it' IA No.3} of 2020 rvas allorvcd on^{pa)'ment o1' costsof Rs.I} '00t)r-^{to the delendants} and the record shows that they^{have acceptedthc costs.}

¶68

In those circumstances, I do not find^{any merit in the revision} petition and it is accordingly dismissed^{confirmingthe orderdate} 19.01.2021 in IA No.3 ol 2020 in^{OS No.l45 of 2012. Thereshall be no} order as to costs

¶69

Miscellaneous applications. if any^{pending in this revision petitioll}

¶70

shall stand closcd

¶71

SD/. I. NAGA^LAKSHMI ASSTSTANT^REGISTRAR /iTRUE^COPY// (jo

¶72

SECTION OFFICER

¶73

To, 1. The Soecial Sessions^{Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities} ' ,li]iiJi w"i"ii':cum--virInao,tional District Judge at Khammam' ,. 6YlZ'ib'b iiiipuJm^{siinivasa Reddv, Advocale-[oPuC]}

¶74

'3. 5;; 6d i; s;i N. kiJnn" sumanth, Advocate toPucl

¶75