Dismissed

Kukutam Ram Reddy and 5 Others v. L. Hanumantha Reddy and 21 Others

Telangana HC30 Mar 2022CRP/2139/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected a civil revision petition filed to challenge the trial court's dismissal of an application seeking amendment to plaintiffs' pleadings. The court held that amendments were barred as the trial had commenced and the changes altered the suit's nature without complying with civil rules.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed confirming trial court order on amendment application; no order as to costs.

Kukutam Ram Reddy and 5 Others Vs L. Hanumantha… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH} --iwo rHousAND AND TWENTY TWo

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARAREDDY}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIONNO: 2139 OF 2019} .,

¶6

Petition Under^{Article227 ol the constitutionof lndia against the order} dated 28-05-2019^{in l.A' No. 1200 of 2018 in O'S'No'178 of 2014 on the file of} fl."^-corrt of the special Judge^{for Triat of offences Undersc/sT( POA)Act -} cum- V Additional^{DistrictJudge,Medak'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kukutam Ram^Reddy ,^{S/o Baga Reddy, aged 90 years' (died)' /o Cheriyal}

¶9

(v), Sangareddy-(M),^{MedakDistrict.}

¶10

2 Kukutam Balwanth^{Reddy, s/o Ram Reddy aged 67 years,R/o cheriyal(v),} SangareddY^{(M), Medak District}

¶11

Kukutam Manik^{Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy,aged 55 years' R/o Cheriyal(v)'} SangareddY^{(M), Medak District}

¶12

4 Kukutam Balakista^{Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy aged70 years' R/o Cheriyal} (v), Sangareddy^{(lt/l), Medak District}

¶13

5 S.Kukutam^{Narayan Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy aged66 years'R/oCheriyal} (v), SangareddY^{(M), Medak District}

¶14

6 Kukutam Durga^{Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, aged 50 years' R/o Cheriyal (v)'} Sangareddy^{(M) lvledak Drstrict}

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

L. Hanumantha^{Reddy S/o LateVeera Reddy' Aged 63 years'Occ Advocate} R/o. Shantinagar,^SangareddY

¶18

2 L Sathamma. wo^{LateVeera Reddy, Aged80 years, occ.Housewife,R/o} Cheriyal, SangareddY

¶19

a L, Veerariuna^{Reddy, S/o Late Malla Reddy, Aged42years,occ. Employee} in Districicourt,^SangareddY

¶20

4 Vishala,^{D/o Late Malla Reddy, Aged35 years'C/o L VeerariunaReddy}

¶21

(Respondent^{No 3)'}

¶22

5 Viplava,^{Wo Govardan Reddy' S/o Late l/alla Reddy Aged 33 years'R/o}

¶23

65il'plrrv ii)lZaneerauao M'andal' Medak District'

¶24

6.1'Manemma,WoLateMalIaReddy,Aged53years,occ'Housewife.R/o CheriYala,^{SangareddY District}

¶25

L. Ramchandra Reddy, S/o Late Buchr Reddy, Aged 57 years. Occ. Bank Emptoyee in ApGVB ;t Bha;;r. patin"ri"i,'rvrrrio.r

¶26

B l-!?^llrT Reddy S/o.Late Buchr Reddy Aged 52 years, Occ Emptovee rn Lranapalnr suoars I-asalwadi Sangareddy. R/o Cheiryal Sangaredby, Mandal, Meda-k Distrrct

¶27

Pushyammqr D/o Late Buchi.Reddy ( W/o Vittal Reddy), Aged 55 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. Khanapur (v), Near banoipei, Ralendra"g"a; M;;a"L n n""' District

¶28

Punyamma, D/o Late Buchi Reddy ( Wo Venkat Reddy), Aged 49 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o 11-.186/1 , Opp Sirivatayam Faiennag;i eilanagjr,-^-'"" Hydreabad.

¶29

1 1. S.uvarna, D/o Late Buchi Reddy ( Wo Raji Reddy), Aged 47 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.^{peddamberpei,} Hayatnalar nrriiijar^-n.n. Districi.'^{- --}

¶30

12.L.Kamalamma, Wo Late Buchi Reddy, Aged 75 Vears Occ. Housewife, R/o Cheriyat (v) Sangareddy Mandat, n4eO'ak diiiiict- '

¶31

'1 3. L. R/o Srinivas Cheriyat Reddy (v)'sangareddv S/o Late Shiva Reddy, Aged rvranoill7rboi[birirfui" 60 years,^" Occ^vvv"v' Aoricutture^{eq (u'E,}

¶32

14 1. Narsimha Reddv s/o Late shiva Reddy, Aged 49 years. occ Agricurture, R/o. Cheriyat (v) Sangareddy rvfj"A"f , rVf"li"xb",itrrct

¶33

L. Purukshotham Reddy, S/o Late Shiva Reddy, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Cheriyai (v) Sangareddy Utjnoji,'Mioak Oistrict^--

¶34

16.Aruna. Wo tr4ahipal Reddy Aged 45 years. Occ Housewife R/o BHEL, R C Puram Medak District

¶35

17.Rukkamma, Wo Late Shiva fleddy Aged 70 years, R/o Cheriyat (v), Sangareddy Mandat, Medak Djstritt

¶36

Prameela, D/o Late Konda Reddy (w/o Laxman Reddy), Aged 65 years, R/o. Korpole (v), Pulkat 1M1, MeOak Disirict

¶37

Narender Re_ddy, S/o Late Balamani. Wo Jaqqa Reddy. Aged 48 years, Occ Agricutture R/o Kolkur (v) Sadasivpet (M) IM"ddali District.

¶38

Ralender Reddv. S/o I ate Balamani, W/o Late Jaoga Reddy. Aged 46 years, Occ. Court cterk, Rlo Sangireddy.^{' r' vEs!vvqv}

¶39

2 l . Vijitha D/o Late Balaman j, C/o Man jk Reddy Aged 42 years, Occ Teacher, R/o Chutkur (v;.

¶40

Kukutam Manik Reddv. S/o Late Chandra Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ Retd ZP emptoyee, R/o Chi:iiyat 1v1, SJngar;odv"nir',i;"r Medak District

...RESPONDENTS

,/,

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petitiin. i.Jiijn court may be preased to stay all further proceedinos in O S No 178/2oi;-o;l;" file of Hon,ble Court of the Speciar Judge for trLt or offencei u.o"isbrsr'1iloo) 0", - cum-V Addr District Judge, N/edak, pending disposal of tfre aOovq dnp'

¶45

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. N. MANOHAR

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 : SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 ,4to 22: None appeared

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

.;..'

¶50

THE^{HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEA'VENKATESHWARAREDDY} CRP^{No.2139of 2019}

¶51

ORDER:

¶52

I This Civil^{RevisionPetitionis filed underArtrele 227} of the^{Constitution of lndia' assailing the orderdated} 28.06.20!9^{in I'A' No'1200of 2018 in O'S'No'178 of 2Ol4} on the^{file of the learnedV AdditionalDistrictJudge'} Medak^{at SangareddY'}

¶53

This^{appiication in IA No'1200 of 2018 was filed} under Order-VI,^{RuIe-17 read with Section 151 of the Civil} ProcedureCode,lg0S(forshort'CPC')filedbythe petitioners /^{plaintiffs seeking permissiontoamend the} plaint by incorporating^{the foliowing words in para-2of the} plaint at line-13^{aJter the words Lingamma"to eakout their} livelihood^{as her husbandis not havingany agricultural} land and^{after the death of Venkat Reddy' the said'lands} inherited^{by his daughter-Lingarnma and her name is} recorded^{as pattedar and possessor along with her junior} paternal uncle" and^{to amend tbe pata-2 of the plaint in} the place of word "mutated", the word "inherited" to be

¶54

Page 2 of⁹

¶55

AVRJ CRP No.2139^of20l9

¶56

repiaced.^{Similarly,in para-3 of the plaint at second line' a} word "transferred"^{is to be replaced as uinherited"'}

¶57

The respondents/defendalts^{have filed a detailed} counter^{contendingthat the proposed amendmentis not} legally^{permissible, it goes against the earlier stand and} foundation^{on which the suit is filed and it changes the} nature of the^{suit claim'}

¶58

4.ThetrialCourtoncarefulappreciationofthefacts dismissed^{the said applicationon the ground that there} was no^{prayerin complianceof Rule 28 of the Civil Rulesof} Practice.^{Assailingthe said order' this civil revision petition} is filed^{bY the} Plaintiffs'

¶59

Heard the^{learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners} /plaintiffs^{and the respondents/defendants' Perusedthe} material^{available on record'} ;

¶60

For^{thesake ofconvenience' the parties are} hereina,fter^{referred to as plaintiffs and defendantsas} arraYed^{in the original suit'}

¶61

)

¶62

Page 3 of 9

¶63

AVRJ CRP No,2l39 of20l9

¶64

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs seeks to submit that the proposed arnendments are only in respect of nature of inheritance, instead of mutation of properties in para-2 and transferred in para_3 of the plaint, it has to be treated as^{..inherited,,} and that the tria-l Court has failed to appreciate the facts. Il the proposed amendments are permitted, no prejudice would cause to the other side. The trial Court has erred in arriving at a conclusion that there is non-compliance of Rule-28 of Civil Rules of Practice by the plaintiffs and relied on the principles laid in the case of Varanasi Mandhaua Rao v. Naragansetti Gootnd Rajulu and. otherst.

¶65

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants strenuously contends that the proposed amendments are at belated stage, the trial has already commenced and the defendants are opposihg the application on two folds, lrstly it changes the very nature of the suit, secondly the plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rule-28 of Civil Rules of practice while liling the said

¶66

t rsse 101 ALD 194

¶67

Page 4 of 9

¶68

AVRJ CRP No.2l39 of20l9

¶69

application for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint on both the counts, the civil revision petition is liable to^be dismissed and the trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the^{pleadings. The learned} counsel for the defendants relied on^{the principles in} Angammal a, Muthupechiammal and anothefl,

¶70

g. I have given thoughtful consideration to the principles laid by both the^{pa.rtiesin the abovedecisions.}

¶71

The original suit is filed^{by the plaintiffsfor} declaration of title and^{injunction in respect of the suit} schedule property. As^{per the CaseStatusInformation,} written statement was filed^{on05.10.2015bythe} defendants. Thereafter,^{the suitunderwentseveral} adjournments^{for issues.Finally,issues were settled on} 03.Os.20lg.Thereafter,whenthesuitwasadjournbdfor trial, the amendment^{application was filed' However'as} per the proceedings^{dated 20'09 '2021' tt is mentionedas} cross-examination^{of plaintiffs' witnesses'}

¶72

'^{tots121 xlu l+}

¶73

Page 5 of 9

¶74

AVRJ CRP No.2l39 of2019

¶75

Thus, in the original suit relating to the year 2014, pleadings completed, issues settled and trial has commenced. The suit is filed for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The present application is filed under Order_VI, Rule_17 of CpC for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint. By Act No.46 of 1999 there was a sweeping amendment by which Rules 17 and 18 of CPC were omitted, so that the amendment of pleadings was not permissible. Finally, to strike a balance, the Legislature has reintroduced Rule_17 by Act No.22 of 2002 with effect from Ol.O7.2OO2.

¶76

It is this proviso which fars for consideration of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Salem Adaocate Bar Association a, union of Indias. In paras_42 and 43, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶77

"42. It is to be noted that the provisions of Order 6 Rule iZ CPC have been substantially amended b1. the CpC (Amendment) Act, 2OO2

¶78

¶79

43' Under the proviso no application for amendment sha.ll be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of

¶80

3 atR zoos sc :3s3

¶81

Page 6 of 9

¶82

AVRJ CRP No.2l39^of2019

¶83

d.ue diligence,^{the matter could not be raised before the} commencement^{of trial. It is submitted, that a-fter the trial} of the case^{Lrascommenced,no applicationof pleading shali} be allowed unless^{the abvoe requirement is satisfied'The} amended Order^{6 Rule17 was due to the recommendation} of the Law^{Commission since Order (sic rule) 17' as it} existed^{prior to the amendment, was invokedby parties} interested in^{delaying the trialThat to shortenthe} litigation ald^{speed up disposalof suits' amendmentwas} made by the^{amending Act,1999, deleting Rule17 from the} Code. This^{evoked muchcontroversy/hestitationall over} the country^{and also leading to boycott of courts ald'} therefore, by^{the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment)Act'} 20O2,^{provision has been restored by recognising the power} of the court to^{grant amendment, however' with certain} limitation which^{is containedin the new proviso added to} the rule."

¶84

In Vidgabai clnd.^{ooLthersu. Padmq'latha and other{} at para-14, it^{isheld. by the HonbleSupremeCourtas} under:

¶85

" 14. It is^{the primal duty of the court to decide as to} whether such al^{amendment is necessar5zto decide the real} dispute between^{the parties'Only if such a condition is} fulfriled, the amendment^{is to be allowed'} However,^{proviso appendedto OrderVI, Rule17 of the Code} restricts the^{power of the court' It puts an embargoon} exercise of its^{jurisdiction'Thecourt'sjurisdiction' in a}

¶86

o AtR 2oo9 sc ta3l

¶87

Page 7 of 9

¶88

AVRJ CRP No.2l39 of 2019

¶89

¶90

case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at a_ll to a_llow the amendment of the plaint."

¶91

In IV. C. Bansal v. Uttar Pradesh Flnanclal

¶92

Corporatlon d.nd anothers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while summarizing the principles in respect of applications under Rule-VI Rule-l7 of CPC held that such applications may be filed when the suit is sti1l at the initial stage i.e., i) when the trial has not yet begun; ii) where the proposed amendment would not change the nature of cause of action, iii) where the applications are not filed at belated stage. Thus, under the above circumstances, courts may liberally aliow the applications lor proposed amendments.

¶93

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the original suit is filed way back in the year 2074, alter completing the pleadings, issues settled and the tria] has commenced. Now with the proposed amendments, the plaintiffs intend to introduce fresh pleadings in the plaint in para-2 to the effect that after the death of Venkat Reddy,

¶94

s porc1 z scc 347

¶95

Page 8 of 9

¶96

AVRJ CRP No.2l39 of2019

¶97

¶98

the suit lands were inherited by his daughter-Lingarnma and her na-rne is recorded as pattadar and^{possessor along} with her^junior paternal uncle and also in^subsequent paras wherever it is mentioned as "mutated/transferred" to mention as "inherited".

¶99

It is a fact that nc such^{prayer for consequential} amendments is mentioned in the said application,^as required under Rule-28 of Civil^Ru1es of Practice.^{It is not} the case of the plaintiffs that for the first time^despitedue diligence, they could not notice all these^{facts and only} when the suit was adjourned for trial,^they noticed^{that the} proposed amendments which are very much^essential.

¶100

When the facts of the present case^{are tested on the} touchstone of the principies laid by the Honble^Supreme Court in the above decisions, the answer^{is in the negative.} The petitioners/plaintiffs are not entitled^{for the proposed} amendments for the simple reason that it^changesthe nature of the suit and filed at^{belated stageafter} commencement of trial. In that^{view of the matter,I do not} find any^{jurisdictional} error^{committed by the trial Court in}

¶101

Page 9 of 9

¶102

AVRJ CRP No.2l39 of20l9

¶103

¶104

dismissing the application filed under Order-VI Rule-17 of CPC.

¶105

In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed conflrming the order dated 28.06.2019 in I.A. No.120O of 2018 in O.S.No.178 of 2014 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶106

As a sequei, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. '-'.---_

¶107

//TRUE COPY//

¶108

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Grt

¶109

To,

¶110

SECTION OFFICER

¶111

The V Additional Disirict and Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy. 2. One CC to Sri N. Manohar, Advocate tOpUCl ..( 3. One CC to Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies Spare Copy fl;,On" obr, V

¶112

HIGH COURT

¶113

DATED: 3010312022

¶114

e TA I 6
1
i;
(-
I
.t 1J JuN 2[??
or)
*<br>i' ,,.

¶115

ORDER

¶116

CRP.No.2139 of 2019

¶117

DISMISSING THE CRP