Dismissed

Pilli Bharathi v. Komma Ramaiah and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Mar 2021CRP/32/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition was filed challenging the dismissal of an application to amend a plaint due to inordinate delay. The court held that the petitioner failed to act within the 14-day limit or carry out the amendment after an earlier order, violating Order VI Rule 18 CPC. Thus, the High Court refused to interfere with the lower court's order and dismissed the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No.32 of 2021 dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pilli Bharathi Vs Komma Ramaiah and 2… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{SECONDDAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICECHALLA KODANDA RAM}

¶5

C R P NO:^{32 OF 202'l}

¶6

PetitionunderArticle22ToftheConstitutionoflndia'aggrievedbytheOrder dated.20-01.2020passedinl.A.No.29412019ino.S.No.195/20l4onthefileofthe Court of the V^{Additional District Judge' Karimnagar'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Household and^Business' Pilli ivii. riiigrdr;viliage, Bharathi,^{W/o.Rajamouli, Minakondur age Mandal' Karimnasar43.} Ygalsl 9cc' District.

¶9

..,PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶10

AND

¶11

I Komma Ramaiah ,^{S/o. Lingaiah, Age' 65} fqa.r:l,Occ'Agriculture'^{R/o Lingapur} Vittage, Manat<ondur^{Mandal, Karimnagar utstrtcr'}

¶12

2 Komma Mallaiah,^{S/o. Ramaiah, Age 44 years'Occ Agriculture' R/o' Lingapur} Viltage, Manakondur^{Mandal, Karimnagar utstrtcr'}

¶13

.7 Adakala Suresh^{Goud, S/o. Lingaiah,} lS"^{a9l?it-:-gccAgriculture'} A;"' H.ft;.; -i:i^{t srz laxmin-ffi.kjri'inagar,Karimnasar District'}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶15

IA NO: 10F²⁰²¹

¶16

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High courtmaybe pleasedto stay all} further^{proceedingsin O S'No'195of 2014 in the Court of V Additional District} Judge, Karimnagar.

¶17

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI' P GlRl KRISHNA}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondents1to 3: Noneappeared}

¶19

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA^{KODANDA RAM}

¶21

CIVIL REVI SION PETITION No.32^{of 2021}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by^{petitioner/plaintiff} against order dated 20.01.2020^passed by the^leamed V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dismissing^I.A.No.294 of 2019 in O.S.No.195 of 2014. filed by her^{for grant of} permission to amend the plaint by inserting paras 4(a), 7(a), l0(a) and^{prayer portion.}

¶24

The aforesaid suit was filed by the^petitioner seeking^to enforce the agreement of sale dated 12.05.2012 with^{respect to} the land to an extent of Acs.2.24^guntas. Thereafter, in^{the said} suit, I.A.No.695 of 2015 was filed by her invoking^{Order VI Rule} 17 CPC seeking to add paragraphs 3(a), 4(a), 7(a), l0(a) and A-l in the relief portion and to implead respondent No.3 on^the ground that she came to know that respondent Nos. I and 2 have executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 on 12.05.2012. The said I.A. was allowed on i6.12.2015, as, no counter-affidavit was reported by the respondents. However, she did not carryout the amendment. She filed a fair copy of the plaint on 08.02.2016. Further, written statement was filed by defendant No.3 and the same was duly adopted by defendant Nos.l and 2. Thereafter,

¶25

¶26

C.R.P-No.32

¶27

issues were framed. At the^{time, when the matter was posted for} trial, the present I.A.No.294 of^{2019was filed statingthat the} amendment, by^{insertingparas3(a), 4(a), 7(a), 10(a) and A-1,} could not be carried out^due to^{inadvertence. By the order under} revision, the said I.A.^{cameto be dismissed on the ground of} violation of Order VI Rule^{18 CPC. Hence,this Civil Revision} Petition.

¶28

Though learned counsel^{for the petitioner/plaintifffairly} submits that^{no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if} the petitioner/plaintiff^{is allowed to amend the plaint on payment} of substantial costs,^{this Court does not see any reason to} interfere with the order^{underrevision.}

¶29

A perusal of the^{order under revisiondiscloses that the} petitioner filed the aforesaid suit^{in 2014 i.e., two yearsafter} execution of the^{agreementof sale alleged to have been executed} by the respondents.^{Though the amendment was soughtand} I.A.No.695 of^{2015 came to be orderedon 16.12.2015, for four} long years, nothing^{was done by the petitioner and thereafter,} I.A.No.294 of 2019^{was filed by her again for amendment of the} plaint. It is to be noted^{that the very purpose of fixing time limit} of 14 days by^{the statuteis to ensurepromptaction on the part of} the party seeking^{amendment' In the presentcase, the delay in}

¶30

CKR, J C.R.P.No.32 of²⁰²¹

¶31

¶32

carrying out the^{amendmentis inordinate and the same is} violative of the mandate of^{Order VI Rule 18 CPC, as rightly} observed by the Court^{below in the order under Revision. [n view} of the same, this^{Court is not inclined to interfere with the order} under revision in exercise of^{its jurisdictionunder Article227 of} the Constitution.

¶33

Accordingly, this Civil Revision^{Petition is dismissed.}

¶34

Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending, shall stand}

¶35

closed. There shall be^{no order as to costs.}

¶36

SD/.N.CHANDRA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The V Additional^{District Judge, Karimnagar'}

¶41

One CC^{to Sri. P. Giri Krishna, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶42

Two CD CoPies CDL gbr

¶43

HIGH COURT

¶44

DATED:0210312021

¶45

.:rt
:1]
,1 He 3 TA re:
oJo 2$ uAn 2u1

tl.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

CRP.No.32 ot 2021

¶48

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶49

@ % 1-<br>*

Pilli Bharathi v. Komma Ramaiah and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pilli Bharathi v. Komma Ramaiah and 2 Others

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

Faisal Bin Ali, Vs N. Motilal

G.Yashoda Vs Gurram Seetharam Reddy

Kondapalli Badramma Vs Bokka Veera Reddy

K.Vittal Reddy Vs a.Satyanarayana Murthy

M a Rahman, Hyderabad Vs M a Baqi, Hyderabad and 13 Others

Syed Saleemuddin Vs Abdul Karim