This judgment dismisses a civil revision petition filed by a property purchaser challenging an order refusing permission to amend his plaint to add details about a fraudulent sale deed and encroachment discovered later.
The amendment prayer was dismissed and the civil revision petition seeking its setting aside was also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THEHIGH COURT FORDTHESTATE OF TELANGANA
*ER)5',%";JXS"'llB"'iJ,'3'"K["'
tffitt"H"'
THE HONOURABLESRIJI ^LLA
Ko DANDA RAM
crvtLREVISI ONP ETITION NO:362O F 2020
Petition underArlicle227 of Constitutionof lndia' aggrieved by the Order dated 2010112020 in lA No.1O/2Ol7in AS No 83/2009on the file of the Court of the lV AdditionalDistrictJudge, (ll FTC), Nalgonda
Between:
55years, Occ.Advocate, DharanikondaAnand, S/o' Muralidhar' Agedabout ilii,.'ri.'r.i".o-l:oso,vunicipatcolonv, Nalgonda' ...PETITIONER
...PETITIONER
AND
lvl/s. Reliancelndustries Limited,Regd.office 3'd floor, /ltrlakers lV 222, Nariman Point IVumbai/ its branchottice roiiieir aiFtyoeranaarepresented bv its Authorized reoresentative srin. namar<rTsi;r;,'Si;.D; PA (lNair'Aged '54 years'R/o Lake b"ri;;,;i;;;;, ;-C-r os/Bii'Riibhavan Road,Somai isuda Hvderabad'
.RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
IANO: 1O F 020
Petition under section151 of cPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be pleasedto stay of all further proceedings in A.s.No.83 of 2009 on thefile of lV Additional District Judge (ll FTC), Nalgonda.
For the Petitioner : SRI T.SRIKANTH REDDY,Advocate
For the Respondent : SRI P.HEMACHANDRA, Advocate
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 362 of 2O2O
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
The order in I.A.No. 70 ol 2077 in A.S. No. 83 of 2009 on the fi1e of the iV Additional District Judge (II FTC), Nalgonda refusing to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint in O.S.No. 205 of 2006 by adding para No. 7-A, is under challenge in this Revision.
It is the case of the petitioner that hepurchased theproperty through Court auction in E.P.No.72 of 2OOO on 17.06.2004,uide sale certificate dated O7.O9.2OO4and obtained possessionof the same through Court on07.03.2005.Subsequently,it is stated, the petitioner came to know that therespondents had encroached on to the suit schedulepropertyby obtaining registered sale deed document No. 322of2003, on 31'01'2003' Inthose circumstances,O.S.No.2O5 of 2006 was filed for declaration and recovery ofpossession of the suit property and that the same came to be dismissedholding that the petitionerfailed to identifythe property. Thepetitionerwas the refore, advised to seek amendment of the plaint as thesale deed dated 31 '01 '2003 was fraudulent' during thependencyof the E.P.proceedings The Application was resisted by theresporldents statingthat the documents referred to in theparagraph sought to be introduced nou' were in existence even at the time offiling the suit and there is no explanation forthcoming as towhy the petitioner could not have pleaded and prosecuted the case at theearliest point of time lt is also further averred that evenin the suit proceedings, similar pleawas taken'
Havingperusedthe material placed beforethis Court' it is seen thatin the written statement fi1ed in the suit' it waspleaded that evenwhile disposingof E'A No' 89 of 2OO4' the Cdurt had observed* .... the auction shouldbe permittedto the extentof the attachedproperties in Survey Nos' 32 1 / A and 322 lBwithout touchingthe propertypurchased by the petitioner under registered Further'a perusalof sale deed,such as Survey No' 322/A """' the plaintdiscloses that practically the petitioner /plaintiffwas aware ofthese developmentsevenmuchbeforethe filingof the suit in 2006as the E.P' proceedings relate to the year 2000' In those circumstances,the impugned order not permitting the amendment at the appellatestage cannotbe found fault with' Accordingly'the Civil RevisionPetition is dismissed The observaticnsmade hereinaboveare only for the purpose of the Revision and they sha1l not be construedas this Court expressingany definiteopinion on the rightsof the respectiveparties in the main Appeal'No costs'
Misceilaneouspetitions,ifanypending,shallstandclosed.
Sd/-K.ATMTMAJI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUECOPY' }\t-'" SECTIONOFFICER
To 1. 2. 11 S:l{iiliT'f^fi One CCto Sri P.Hemacnan'',tH::dd;},sEr,'.!' 4. Two CDCoPies Kj
HIGH COURT
DATED:03/03/2021
1 t{e s TA TA
ot) 1g l4Afl 2021
ORDER
CRP.No.362 ol 2020
DISMISSING THE CRP.
frcr
q
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order refusing to permit amendment of the plaint by adding a new paragraph is liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioner was bound by laches in failing to plead the existence of the encroachment earlier.
Dharanikonda Anand
M/s. Reliance Industries Limited
CHALLA KODANDA RAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
