The High Court of Telangana dismissed a civil revision petition seeking amendment of a plaint to claim shares in partition suit property.
Civil Revision Petition No.6294 of 2018 dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
[3253 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6294 OF 2018
Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the order Dt.03-08-2018 passed in 1.A.No.222 ot 2018 in O.S.No.454 of 2008 on thefile of lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Diskict at L.B. Nagar.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS No.20 TO 2023
AND
(Respondents 4lo 11 are r/o H.No.194-279lcl2lA, Teegalakunta, Hyderabad.)(Res.8, 9& 11 are represented by Resp.4)
12.Ahmed, S/o. Late Anis Begum, Aged about 25 years, Occ Business, R:/o. H.No.18-2-3015, Falaknama, Hyderabad
66.Sri V.Niranjan Reddy, S/o.Sri V.V.R.Reddy, aged about 53 years, Occ
80.Habbed Khan, S/o Daulath Khan, aged 35 years, Occ Mechanic, R/o H. No.. 8-2-603/38, Road No. 10, Singara Basti, Banjara Hi[s, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS 1 TO 19 & DEFENDANTS
IA NO: 1 OF 2020
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 permit the petitioner to serve Notices on Respondent Nos.2, 4-34,36, 40, 43-51, 53-54, 59-60, 62, 63, 68, 69,71,72,73 in C.R.p.No.6294 of 2018 by substituted service by way of publication of notices in newspaper circulating in lotal edition of the Ranga Reddy/Hyderabad District.
NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under section 148 R/w 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the stay granted by this Hon'ble court in lA No. i of 201ti, dt. 2-11-2018, grantingstayall furtherproceedingsinosNo.454ot2oogonthefile of lll Addl. District Judge, R.R.District, L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the above CRP in the interest of Justice.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BOKARO SAPNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents No.53, 54 & 62: SRI A. VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondents No.67: SRI AVINASH DESAI
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Civil Revision Petition No.6294 OF. 2018
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 03.O8.2O18 in 1.A.No.222 of 2018 in O.S.No.454 of 2O08 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, theplaintiff Nos.20 to 23 have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
--.".,
2
MGP, Crp_6294_2Ola
petition due to lack of bona hdes. The respondent No.53 i.e., M/s. Theme Constructions private Limited filed its counter contending that the legal heirs of original pattedar sold the property to respondent No.53 and their associates under a registered sale deed dated 06.1O.200S with different extents. It was further contended by respondent No.53 that the owners have entered into development agreement pursuant to which the propert5r has been developed. It is further contended that in the written statement itseif it has been categorically pleaded about the fraud and collusion being played between the transposed plaintiffs and original plaintiffs and thus, prayed to dismiss the amendment petition.
MGP,J Ctp 6294 2Ol8
3
to 32. Apart from the above, the revision petitioners have also sought for declare six registered sale deeds as null and void.
7 . Coming to the aspect of share of the parties in the suit property, it is to be seen that plaintiff Nos.1 to 19 have .schedule initially filed the suit for partition and separate possession and for allotment of 1/86 share each .to the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 19, defendant Nos.31 ar,d .32, defendant Nos. 1, 4 to 15, defendant Nos.4 to 15, defendant No.2, defendant No.3 and to allot yz share to defendant Nos. 16 to 30. After transposition of revisions petitioners as plaintiff Nos.20 to 23, , they are seeking amendment with regard to quantum of share to which they are entitied. But it is to be seen that it is the plaintiff 1 to 19, .Nos. who have approached the Court by frling O.S.No.454 of 2008 and whereas the relief of amendment with'regard to shares of the parties is in coirflict with the interest of plaintiff Nos.1 to 19, which cannot be permitted.
MGP,J Crp 6294,2018
4
48 and thereby M/ s. Vishnu Housing Private Limited cannot become the owner of the land to an extent of Ac. 1.00 guntas through registered sale deed vide document No.16968 of 2OO5 dated 06. 1O.2OO5. It is settled law that if, by permitting plaintiffs to amend the plaint including a prayer clause nature of the suit is likely to be changed, in that case, the Court would not bejustihed in allowing the amendment. In Ganesh Prasad
v. Rajeshwar Prasadl, the Apex Court held that where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed.
'CIVILAPPEAL arisingoutofSLP (C)No. 28377OF 2018) decrded on 14 March, 2023
MGP,J Ctp-6294,2O18
5
schedule property. Thelearned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decisionrenderedby the High Court for the erstwhile State ofAndhra Pradeshin Chilakani VenkataRao v'
Lakshman Rao and others2, wherein itwas observedas under:
"It is utell known that in asuit forpartition all parties, u.tho haue a share in tlrcpropertiesto be partitioned, would be in theposition ofplaintiffs ond can take all thepleas, uhicha plaintiff con taken, and so their uritten statements alsotuouldbe in the nature of plaints."
, ,lqw /^P /0202 / 2006
MGP, Crp 6294 2018 ',.
6
Nos.55 to 57 by mentioning in the plaint that defendant Nos.55 to 57 are not entitled for any share in the schedule of property. lt is to be seen that mother of defendant Nos.55 to 57 was impleaded as defendant No.58 vide order dated 17.12.2014 in I.A. No. 1394 and thereafter she was transposed as plaintiff No.23 along with the plaintiff Nos.2O to 22. It is further contention of the revision petitioners that the plaintiff has purposefully shown a wrong address for defendant Nos.55 to 57 and got them ex-parte. However, it is to be seen that the revision petitioners have filed petition to set aside the ex parte order and thereafter they were transposed as plaintiff Nos.20 to 23. Irrespective of the fact as to whether a party is a defendant or a plaintiff is entitled for share in the property, il such party is legally entitled to such share in the suit schedule property as per law.
I MANU /AP /t742/2Or4
MGP,J Crp-6294_2Ola
7
allow an impleaded part5z to amend or alter the pleadings of another partSr already on record. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied upon a decision delivered by High Court of Kerala in Aliyamma v. Kunjamma John+, wherein it was observed that the expression 'amend his pleadings, refers to the pleadings of the original plaintiff or the defendant in the suit, that means none other than the author has the right to seek leave to amend the original pleadings. The revisions petitioners have every opportunity to put forth their contentions with regard to shares of the parties to the suit by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and the trial Court based on such evidence, may arrive to a conclusion with regard to shares of the parties to which they are legally entitled. Even in the impugned order the trial court rightly observed that the shares of the petitioners can be determined at the time of trial.
4 MANU/KE/0883/2021
MGP,J Crp 6294-2018
8
plaintiffs i.e., revisions petitioners are quite contrary to the contentions of plaintiff Nos. I to 19. In view of the principle laid down in the above said decisions and since the contentions of the transposed plaintiffs are against the contentions of original plaintiffs, amendment cannot be permitted, more particularly, when the suit is coming up for trial. An original defendant, who is afterwards transposed as plaintiff has every right to fall back upon the conditions in the written statement and plaint together in pursuit of the suit claim. It is not the case of the revision petitioners that the original plaintiff Nos. 1 to 19 have not opposed for the amendment. It is a case where, not only the original plaintiffs but also one of the defendants i.e., M/ s. Theme Constructions Private Limited have strongly opposed for allowing the amendment petition, more particularly, when the amendment as sought by the revision petitioners/ transposed plaintiffs is prejudicial not only to the original plaintiffs but also to M/s. Theme Constructions Private Limited, which is one of the defendants in the suit.
o
MGP,J Crp 6294 2]la
tlie hndings of the trial Court is very limited to a supervisory roie and can certainly not be the resort to correct every erroneous order. As seen from the grounds of revision, the revision petitioners failed to bring out any of the grounds showing that there is an error apparent on the face of the record to set aside the impugned order. Therefore, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and thereby it is liable to be dismissed.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/: MOHD. ISMAIL ASSrsrANr v,*SECTION OFFICER
To,
s
HIGH COURT
DATED:1711112023
SlAi€
I t\E
(
c 1E ttB ?ul : )l
,L)
'./
).
t L) -,- )'
ORDER
CRP.No.6294 ot 2018
DISMISSING THE PETITION.
c{,ts
@
3 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment of a plaint in a partition suit to add claims are against the interest of original parties and third-party defendants can be permitted.
Whether the revision court can interfere with the trial court's refusal to allow amendment that seeks to alter the nature of the suit and claims.
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Article 227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar PrasadExplained¶8
Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad
Chilakani Venkata Rao v. Lakshman Rao and othersExplained¶11
Chilakani Venkata Rao v. Lakshman Rao and others
Prakash Rao Dandgey v. Satyanrayana DandgeyRelied on¶12
Prakash Rao Dandgey v. Satyanrayana Dandgey
Aliyamma v. Kunjamma JohnRelied on¶12
Aliyamma v. Kunjamma John
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chotu Miya, Md.Ghouse, Smt. Zainab Begum, Beejan Bee
Mohammed Suleman, Akbar, Smt. Hussenia Begum
Theme Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
M.G. Priyadarsini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
