Allowed

Mohd. Saleem v. P Naveen Kumar

Telangana HC16 Apr 2021CRP/677/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, setting aside an order by the Rent Controller that permitted an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that substituting a new respondent via amendment violates Order I Rule 10 CPC, citing material irregularity and prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; Order in I.A. No. 50 of 2017 set aside.

Mohd. Saleem Vs P Naveen Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 677 OF 2019

¶8

Petition under Artide 227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order dated 0210112019 in lA No.50 ot 2017 in RC No.95 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Rent Controller, at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

IVOHD. SALEEM. S/o. Jahangir

¶11

,..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND

¶12

P,NAVEEN KUIMAR, S/o. P.Narasing Rao, R/o. H. No. 20-2-488, Hussain Atam, Hyderabad.

¶13

.,.RESPON DENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶14

lA NO:^'l OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all furlher proceedings in lA.No.50/2017 in RC.No.95/2014 dated.02-01-2019 on the file of the lV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶16

For the Petitioner : SRI S.MALLESWARA RAO, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondent : MS B.KAVITA YADAV, Advocate

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.677 of 2019

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Thls civil revision petition is filed challenging the order in I.A.No.50 of 2017 in R.C.No.95 of 20L4 on the file of i Additional Rent Controller, FAC IV Additiona I Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶23

The respondent claiming himself to be the landlord with respect to the suit schedule property had filed an eviction petition in R.C.No.95 of 2014 before the Rent Controller seeking evictlon of the petitioner. The iA No.50 of 2017 is filed seeking to amend the petition by invoking Order VI Rule 17 CPC by adding para 1(a) in the eviction petition. The 1.A. came to be allowed after considering submissions made by both the parties. The LA. was opposed by the petitioner herein by filing counter stating that the very R.C. itself was not maintainable and there is a dispute with respect to the respondent being the landlord of the subject premises and the tenant is paying the rents to the original landlord being in occupation of four mulgis. The relief claimed in the original petition being different from what is sought to be introduced by way of amendment at a belated stage, would change the entire complexion of the orlginal petition and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further asserted that there is inordinate delay and the amendment cannot be ordered without there being sufficient reasons/ however, the petition came to be allowed stating that no^prejudice would^be caused and the amendment was for better adjudication of the case.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by amending the cause title virtually a new respondent is sought to^{be introduced as in the} original R.C., the respondent who is shown was son of^{Jahangir whereasin} the amendment what is sought is the Mohd. lahangir Ali @ Mohd. Salim^S/o lVohd. Abdul Kareem, and Further the description of the^{propertywasalso} altered by introduction of four door numbers and^{further deletingthe earlier}

.rp 6/7_2019 c(R.l

admissions with respect to the respondent in O.P. carrying on business of optical shop under the name and style of Saleem Optical Shop. He would flrrther contend that the reasons for allowing the amendment were not germane and at the belated stage the amendment was ordered and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition.

¶29

On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes and submits that while filing the original petition, ceftain typographical errors crept in with respect to description of the respondent and also with respect to description of property which necessitated correction of the cause title as well as addltion of para 1(a). The amendments allowed do not change the character of the proceedings and that would facilitate avoiding of multiplicity of proceedings. The learned Rent Controller considered the pleadings and case of the respondent and rightly allowed the amendments holding that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. In those circumstances, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of civil revision petition.

¶30

Having regard to the respective submissions, at the outset, it may be noted that originally the OP was filed against one lvlohd, Salim S/o Jahangir, with respect to schedule of property of two shops forming paft of House bearing No.20-4-199/1/D and 20-4-L99/I/E in the first floor admeasuring 474 Sq.feet in which the respondent (petitioner herein) is carrying on the business of Optical Shop under the name and style of Farheen Optical Shop situated at Manjili Begum Haveli, Shalibanda, with specific boundaries. By way of amendment, a new para 1(a) was sought to be added describing the property. The other amendment is with respect to the Cause Title. In the Cause Title, the defendants name is total y changed by inserting Mohd. lahangir Ali @ Mohd. Salim S/o Mohd. Abdul Kareem, in place of Mohd. Salim S/o M hd. lahanqir. By changing the name of the respondent, entirely a new person is sought to be made a party-respondent which can be done only by invoking Order I Rule 10 CPC subject to limitations, and not

ctp-677 -2A79 CKR, J

under Order Vi Rule t7 CPC. By allowing the amendment, the respondent is substituted without following the procedure prescribed. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner herein. The observation of the learned Rent Controller stating that or-dering of amendment would result in better adjudication of the case is unmeaning in the absence of specifying in what manner better adjudication would be facilitated, In the circumstances, there is material irregularity in ordering the amendment at belated stage as even the reasons stated for substitutlon and seekino amendments at a belated stage were also not convincing.

¶36

In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order in the I.A.No.50 of 2077, with a caution to the learned Rent Controller to exercise due diligence while considering the matters of this nature as the error pointed out is glarlng and conspicuous. No costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶38

Sd/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// tz.*,,-,/

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To 1. The lV Additional Rent Controller, at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri S.Malleshwar Rao, Advocate^(OPUC) a One CC to l/s. B.Kavitha Yadav, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶41

Two CD Copies Kj

¶42

HIGH COURT

¶43

DATED:1610412021

¶44

1\ 9-r.{ }g
I
11 i-il{ 2021 .(
t
L i-.' - '.1('- . . ' .:.
-a-:,t?-

ORDER

CRP.No.677 of 2019

ALLOWING THE CRP.

D ,bI
, D

Mohd. Saleem v. P Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saleem v. P Naveen Kumar

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

D. Satyanarayana Raju, S/o.Late D.Narsimha Raju Vs M. Venkat Reddy, S/o M.Surender Reddy,Occu.Business

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Vs Mrs. Laiq Fatima

Smt.S. Keshava, Vs Smt.K.Parvati Rao

Gadela Ashok Vs Nannap Raju Sujatha

Papaiahgari Aagaiah and 3 Others Vs Papaiahgari Laxman

C.A. Dattatraya Rao Vs Telangana State Police Housing Corporation and Another