Dismissed

Dantaluri Venkatapathi Raju v. D.Rajeshwari Sirisha

Telangana HC27 Feb 2023CRP/6012/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a civil revision petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court's refusal to permit an additional written statement. The court held that the petitioner sought to take a divergent stand contradictory to prior judicial admissions, causing prejudice to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application to file the additional written statement was allowed to remain dismissed.

Dantaluri Venkatapathi Raju Vs D.Rajeshwari… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁶⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6012 oF 2018

¶7

Petition under Nlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 0210812018 in lA No.72 of 2018 in OS No.71 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Vll Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dantaluri Venkatapathi Raju, S/o. Late Sri Venkata Krishna Raju, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.4-4, Kolanka, Kajaluru, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Temporarily come down to Mahabubnagar.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ DEFENDANT NO.1

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. D.Rajeshwari Sirisha, W/o. Late D.V.S.Varma Raju, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Occ Business, Ri./o. Flat No.702, Block-A, Fortune Towers, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶13

......RespondenU Respondent No.1/ Plaintiff

¶14

D.V.Subramanyam Raju, Sio. Jogi Jagannath Raju, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Occ Business, Fl/o. Flat No.303, Ganga Kaveri Apartments, Shyamlal Building Area, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT NO.2/ RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT NO.2

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶17

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No.71l2012, dt.O2-08-2O18 pending on the file of Vll Additional District Judge, Mahbubnagar, pending disposal of the above CRP.

¶18

For the Petitioner : SRI S.SRIDHAR, Advocate

¶19

For the Respondents : SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, Advocate

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

IIIE II(,,\OI IT,,\BLI] SItI JT]S1'IC]E A.SA\1 I{OSII ItI.,DD\

¶22

C.R.l'.No.6012 OF 2018

¶23

oRD[,It

¶24

l'hr - ci . I revision petition undcr An clc -).7 rl thc

¶25

Constituti,rn ,r1 nclia is dirccted against the order datec (r2.08.201tt in l.A.No 72 r,. 2018 in O.S.No.71 of 2012. c,n lhe tile ol the VII^,\dditrona Distlict Judge. \4ehabubnagar. u he-i ir t[.c. said applicatiorr lilc iry the petitioner (defendant No. I ), rrr,1cr Order VIII Rulc ') r,:z^,r'irti Section l5 I o1'the Llivil Procectt rr ('ode (in short.^{'('l ("t} ccking to qrant lcrtve to file iclcl tcnLl ir rilten statement, rvas : isrnissecl

¶26

I Iea d le. red counsel for the petitioner a; rlel. r s l,:anred counscl lirI thc tcspondcnr \o.1. None appcarcd lirr^-,..spondent No.L l)erL:se<l e record

¶27

Rr-s;r6n,11, rt No.l/plaintilT flled rhe suit O.S.No.7 ol 2012 lbr specili,: pe; irrrlance ol agrecnte nt ol sale riate<l 2tll.0: .20 l2 against th-. p. irioner/de f-endanr No.I and re sprtrxL,-'rrt No.2/ dclendant \o.l i)cf'endant No. I llled u,ritten srrttcr.ut.rr . \,hilc so. thc lcvi;io r ; ct iLioncr. llleci an lrirplication in L,.i.,1o.,'tol 20 llt

¶28

¶29

)

¶30

under Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section 15 I CpC seeking to grant leave to file additional written statement. Respondent No. l/plaintiff reported no counter, while rcspondent No.2 filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the allegations in the petition On a consideration of the material on record the trial Court dismissed the said application vide orders dated 02.0g.201g. Challenging the orders, the prescnt revision is filed

¶31

Learned counsel lbr the petitioner submits that the trial Cou( committed error in not giving opportunity to the petitioner to file additional written statement and filing of the same would neither change the nature ol the suit nor the relief prayed and no prejudice would be caused to the case of the plaintiff. Leamed counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to file additional written sratcmcnt.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the trial Court had rightly held that by way of additional written starement, the categorical admissions made by the revision petitioncr in the earlier written statement can be taken arvay and he is not cntitled to take a \ \

¶33

dir crgcn' st trd br' f rling additional^{r^} ritLetr stirtenlcnt In su1'rpc rt .) llis contentions ancl submission-., ear::d courlsel placetl r,,'licd on the decision o1' the Hon'ble Ape;, C ourl ln R.AM NlRr|, lr\N KAJARIA v. SHEO PRAKASII KAJARIA AND o'I HI]Ii SI

¶34

l-h-rs, o hearing the submissions of both the l<:z n ed coutrsel and orr prlr.rsirr r the matelial on record, the only^{(luesl.i lr' thittarises} Iirr cr.r'rsiricnrt ,n is^g,hether the impugned ord-'r is :tr: toirrablc irl la*'.'

¶35

,\driirte l1'. the revision petitioner hed 1 lt'd n,ritten sratenrcnl in tl e srrit on 0l.ll.l0ll. '[-hc pre:eni apJ licrttion is lrlcd sceking l. le ol thc Coun to file additional wt-ittr:r.t stlrtL-lltettt ln thc aflldar filed in suppoft ol the applict,tion, t[rc revision petitioner ple:a. c<l that in thc writtcn statemcnt filed on l2.l 1,20 I2. ceftain ircc'n ct facts have bcen incorporate<l^vr thcut^his knorvledg,.. Tl e nrain avermcnts are that the deti'n,iant^No.l Iiauclr-r lenr lr () :ained gilr cleed in his nante.^'l he pi tiliorcr u as ille grrl ll conljr r rcl frrr a period of thlee wecks under' -lLlr at^rmd his

¶36

'rl(tl;tl-t^{:,(( :I}

¶37

¶38

slgnatures were taken on some stamp papers and blank papers. It is further averred that the written sratement filed by hirn in the suit was engineered by defendant No.2. l.he revision peritioner further pleaded that he executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 and it was obtained fraudulentiy. Under these circumstances, he was advised to file additional written statement to bring the above said flacts before the Court.

¶39

Prior to deciding the above revision petition, it is nccessarl, to see what is the law on the subject, as contemplatcd under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil procedure Code. Order VIII Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code reads:

¶40

Subsequent pleadings: No pteading subsequent to the written statement of a ( Jefendant other than by way of defence to a set-off counter-claim shall be presented except by tn" r"au' the court and upon such terms as the court tnintr fit' but the court may at any time requrre a written written sratement r..", ;;; ;'i::ff:::. :::T:l time for presenting the same.

¶41

Thus, the Rule says that other than by way of deGnce to a set-o11' or counter-claim, only with the leave of the court pleadilg

¶42

subseqLr.n( , thc written statement shall be prc:crLt,'d and it is up to tlle ro rrr, [o dccide and il it thinks tlt. it ci,u d ullor." the prescntz.tion r1' the subsequent pleading of the rieI:rdarrt. In the case on han ,,rnly' in contpliance of the Rr-rlr', t,ti: [r.'titioner had 1l lcd tht' abc e intcrlocutory application seeki rg lc,r ',.' ol the trial court [c rec. .,e the additional written statentent on gr,:unds as allcged in th, atlidavit tiled in support ofthe pcritio l

¶43

tr NI/' MODI SPINNING AND WE.\VIl(i MILLS r,. M/s L,\DH , RAM & CO..r it is held that l, nre-ans of arncnclrrc'n. tl e dcli,nclants \'anted to introduce an c^-'r ir-'lr cliftcrent case anrl i1' r; rch arnendtncnts were permitted, it vr,rr- ld prejudice the othe r si< ['hat is to be decided, in thc ligl-,t r,1' tlre abovc proposition l' the Aper Court. by the courl tlcali rg r,l,ith the sLrbject s t,r rnd out whether the defendant wilnts to ntrrtduce an enlirely difler :nt case so as to prejudice the other siJ:, provided he is perLli tetl t, c31ry out the atnendments

¶44

19t7 \IIt S( ]()

¶45

¶46

So far as the order of the Courl below is concemed, it is observed that the additionar wrirten sratemenr soughr to be filed is contradictory to the earlier written staternent filed by the petitioner. Apart from that, the trial Court observed that on a perusal of the written statement proposed to be filed by the petitioner, the petitioner intends to take away his categoricar adrrissions in the pleadings which are judicial admissions under Secrion 5g of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to take a divergent stand by filing additional wrirten statement. The trial Corrl fi2d given proper reasons fbr rejecting permission to grant leave to file additional written statement which is contradictory to the earlier written statement.

¶47

A careful perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application as well as the proposed additional written statement now sought to be filed, {.he pleadings categorically show that total contradictory stand has been taken by the revision petitioner than what was pleaded in the earlier writ statement. It is quite evident that the present application is fi led in Fpbruary,20lg \ and the impugned order is dated 02.0g.20 Ig,

¶48

¶49

¶50

\ hcte rs tho vr ittcn sLatelncnt was li ied by tho^lc Litiotlcr orl 01. l 1.10 Ll. .l'Lcr a gap ol' six^vears, the^{revisionp: itic,nerltas} comc up u it. the application, taking a contradictotv stand^than rt,ha[ *'lrs pr :aded in the w'ritten statemen lile^j earlier on 02.I l .2012

¶51

ln th,: rclgrnenL in RAM NIRANJAN KA.l,\ltIA's^case, ( I supra t rr:l d on bv lcarned counsel for respon,J:r t No.l, the Ilon'hlc .[.e'^('oult rr,hile cousidering "whethcr -t ct:^{encLantin a} su iL lirr parliti )r' can be permitted to withdrarv an al r ssi,rn rnade S tNC ISSUC in the v rit.e staterrrent alier a pretty long perioJ,

¶52

arisin,l 1.r- r:c sideration in the present case, observe'< irt pirra l8 as untlcr

¶53

'he learned Counsel appearing for the appe lrrn: marnly re errec o three Judgments of this Court ln lrtlodi Spirrr ng rrnd Weav n Mills Co. Ltd. v Ladha Ram & Co, it w,ar; 'reld as fo lows Paragraph-10

¶54

' lt rs true that inconsistent pleas can be ma J€ in eadings but the effect of substitution of^pa'es; 25 ro 26 is not making inconsistent and allerr€rtive eadings but rt rs seeking to displace the^prlrr r,tiff )nrpletely from the admrssions maCe by:he rfendants in the written statement. lf sr.ch n'?ndments are allowed the plainliff ^,il be

¶55

'e:rrevably preludiced by berng (len e(l rhe rportunrty of extracting the admission f'onr the :fendants. The High Court rightly rejecto( the

¶56

¶57

ffi3,,on for amendment and agreed with the trial

¶58

In the light of the above judgmenr. rhe rnconsrstent plcas taken by the revision petitioner would certainly displace respondent No. I /plaintiff completely l.rom the ad mlssrons nrade by the revision petitioner ln his written statement and if such amendments are allowed, respondent No. I rvould be put to prej udice. Apart lrom that, contradictory and tconsrstent stands

¶59

cannot be permitted to be taken by filing additional written statement compretely against the stand taken in the earrier rvritten statement and permitted to introduce a new plea. Irurther, the admissions in the pleadings of the written statement fired by the revision petitioner are admissible under Section 5g of the Evidence Act and the same was rightly observed by the trial Court.

¶60

15' For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the trial Court had rightly dismissed I.A.No.72 of 20lg filed seeking to grant Ieave to the revision petitioner to file additional written statement, with valid reasons . I do not find any irregular.ity or infirmity in the order of the Court below warranting interference bv

\ \

[]ri.⁽ rrL[t rn cxe|cise of porvers undcr Articl,: 21,.7 ol the

¶65

C onstiLurio ol lndir

¶66

n tlt. rrsrrll, the civil revision petition is clir;rr.issr:d. .J.herc

¶67

shall b: n() rccr as to costs.

¶68

ll . l)end g rniscellaneous petitions, ifany, shall st.rnd closecl.

//TRUE COPYII

Sd/.I',NAC;ABHUSHAMBA ASS lSiTAhlT REGtSTRI\R.

¶73

one Fair Copy to th,, Honourable Sri Justice A.santhosh R"o,r,, "tuaIoN OFFICER r^:or his Lordships kind perusalj^--

¶74

¶75

1 2 The '1 1 L.R.C Vll r\dditr opre . nal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, Mahart u:rnar;ar District. I[3,lrl?rT;:l; retary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Ju,;ri,;e zrnd corrrpany 4 -Tetansa na Advocates Association Libra r1', rlish court #i,.:"?::15; ; 6.tr Qne^{CQ to :tr i.Sr,dhar,Advocate} tOpUCl 9n" 99^{to ljr SaddamSrinivas,} Ari,ilcIti'loeuct 7. Two CD Copi,; ;

?*^{c^.}

HIGH COURT

DATED:271O212023

-':t' .-
,.2/ , "
".
15 ilil ?[8

¶80

ORDER

¶81

CRP.No.6012 of 2018