Allowed

Sri.S.E.Srinivas v. K.S.Ravi Kumar

Telangana HC18 Dec 2023CRP/1817/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition holding that the trial Court erred in permitting an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 18 CPC filed after the plaintiff's evidence was concluded and eight years after the alleged alienation occurred without assigning reasons for the delay.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

Sri.S.E.Srinivas Vs K.S.Ravi Kumar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1817 OF 2022

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 22.06.2022 made in 1.A.No.194 of 2O2O in O.S.No.99 of 201 1 on the file of the Court of the XIX Addl. Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.S.E.Srinivas, S/o S.Eshwariah, Aged 6'1^years, Occ. Business,

¶9

Sri.S.Sangeetha, W/o Sri.S.E.Srinivas Aged 51^years, Occ.Housewife,

¶10

Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are Ri/o Plot No.85, Road No.5, Dhanlakshmi Colony, Mahendra Hills, East Marredpally, Secunderabad

¶11

Sri.S.Eshwariah, S/o Late S.Rajiah Aged 86 years, Occ. Retired Employee, R/o 4-1-48, Geetha Nagar, Malkaj^giri, Hyderabad.

¶12

..Petitioners/Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶13

AND

¶14

K.S.Ravi Kumar, S/o Late K.Swamy, aged 45^years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o 3-18-64, Pedda Kamela, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad-500015.

¶15

...RespondenUPetitioner/Defendant

¶16

lA No.1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of order and decree dL22.6.2O22 passed in 1.A.No.194/2020 in O.S.NO.9912011 on the file of the XIX Addl.senior civil^judge, city Civil court at Secunderabad, pending disposal of the CRP.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT.^{WSTICE K. SUJANA} CTVIL REVISION PETIT^{IONNo. 1817 of2022}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Aggrieved by the order dated^{22.06'2022in I'A'No'194} of 2O2O in O.S.No.99^of 2011^{passedby the Courtof learned} XIX Additional Senior Civil^{Judge, City Civil Court,} Secunderabad, the^{presentCivil RevisionPetition is filed by} the petitioners / respondents/^plaintiffs.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are^{that the respondent herein} filed I.A.No. 194 of 2O2O^{befote the trialCourt seeking} amendment of the written^{statementstating that he along} with one Jamalpur Ramchander,^{who is the originalowner} sold 787 square yards with thatched^{sheds in Sy'Nos' 100/ 1,} 1OOl2, lOO/3, 102 and^{103 situatedat TrimulgherryVillage} and Mandal, Hyderabad,^{which forms part of thesuit} schedule property to one P.Prabhakar^{and three others under} registered sale deed bearing^{document No.723} l2Ol2,^dated ll.O5.2ol2. At the time of^{filing of the writtenstatement,} respondent could not take the^{said pleading of alienation of} the above said property,^{which forms part of the suit schedule} propertie s.

¶25

¶26

SK.'J C.R.P.No. t8t7 of 2022

¶27

The revision petitioners herein fiIed counter afhdavit denying the averments made by the respondent herein that the suit is of the year 2011, the transactions took place in the year 2Ol2 whereas the petition filed in the year 2020 and any alienations made by the petitioners/defendants is hit by the doctrine of ns pendens. The respondents filed their written statement in the month of August 2Oll, by which time, there was no such alleged alienation by the petitioner and if any such alienations made by the petitioner, has nothing to do with the pleadings. He further submitted that the respondent has created a sham sale deed during the pendency of the suit, as such, he prayed the Court that the proposed amendment petition is not maintainable and no amendments can be permitted at the stage of trial.

¶28

The trial Court observed that except stating that proposed amendment has no bearing on the outcome of the suit and such sale is hit by the principle of tis pend.ens, trre respondents/ plaintiffs submitted no other valid reason to reject the petition. Further, the respondents,rplaintiffs have the opportunity to elicit lrom the cross examination of petitioner/defendant to substantiate his pleadings in respect of the proposed amendment and allowed the petition stating

¶29

¶30

SK'J C.R.P.No.l8l7^of2022

¶31

that such amendment^{is necessary to determine the real} questions in controversy,^{and the petitioner/defendant has} made out the^{case despitedue diligenceat the time of filing} written statement.

¶32

Heard Sri Polligani^{Sridhar Reddy,learned counsel for} the petitioner.^{Though notice served upon the respondent'} none appeared^{on his behalf.}

¶33

)

¶34

Having considered^{the submissionsmade by learned} counsel for the^{petitionerand having gone throughthe} material available^{on record,it is noticed that the suit is of} the year 2011^{and the I.A- is of the year 2O2O and the} transaction took^{place in the year 2012'The I'A is fileda-fter} completion ol^{the plaintiffs' evidence,stating that he sold} away the^{property which is part of the suit schedule property} along with original^{owner in the year 2Ol2' whereas' the} I.A.No. 194 of^{2O2O was frled in the year 202OunderOrderVI} Rule 18 of CPC^{seekingfor amendmentofthe written} statement. The Order^{VI Rule 18 of CPC says that any} amendments^{shall be allowed before commencementof the} trial, whereas, in^{the present case,defendant himself along} with other sold away^{the property,which is part of suit} schedule property^{but not filed any petition itLhre year 2Ol2}

¶35

¶36

s(s.-/ C R P.No. t8l7 of 2D2

¶37

ard frled petition in the year 2020. Amendment can be allowed in spite of due ditigence that fact was not come into the knowledge of the petitioner. Further, the trial also commenced in this case and the trial Court allowed the amendment petition rgnonng the fact that the evidence of plaintiff was concluded. Moreover, coming to the contention of alienation and the pleadings thereof, it is noticed that the defendant himself sold the property in the year 2Ol2 but no petition was filed with regard to it from 2Ol2 to 2O2O period, no reasons assigned in the petition for delay when it is in his knowledge.

¶38

7 . In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the trial Court erred in allou,ing the amendment petition and this revision petition is liable to be allowed.

¶39

Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneoqs petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/. V.HARI PRASAD AsstsrANrtctsrRAR

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

SECTION OFFTCER

¶44

To, SECTION OFFTCER 1 2 . 5:::a fl'gl:'3tTfiEofl,'lllvlg:'-c'tv^{civir court} at secunderabad 9," 9g^{i; sni i#".i"-:flffino*REDDYAdvocate [oPUC]} . two CD Copies i3

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811212023

ORDER

CRP.No.1817 of 2022

cF TE L4
o
c
9
1"sv
+
o
o q{, ttJ
I
\
HcI H+

¶51

ALLOWING THE CRP

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS

Sri.S.E.Srinivas v. K.S.Ravi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S.E.Srinivas v. K.S.Ravi 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

Smt. Sundari Sushma Vs Sri Naveen kumar

M/s Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited Vs E.Venkatraman

M/s Aasritha Chit Fund Private Limited Vs Gaddela Devanna

Alle Poojitha Vs Golla Aravindu

M.Kamal Nayan Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Madireddy Srinidya Vs Venkatapuram Diwakar Reddy