Allowed

M/s. Geetha Enterprises v. Sardar Baldev Singh Sokhi

Telangana HC11 Jan 2024CRP/414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against refusal to allow amendment of cause-of-action date, time and limitation date in a possession suit. The court distinguished the cited Supreme Court precedent, found the amendment reflected an error already corrected by a police complaint filed with the suit, allowed the amendment, set aside the trial court's order, and closed miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

CRP allowed; trial court's order dated 01.12.2022 set aside; amendment of date/time of cause of action permitted; no costs.

M/s. Geetha Enterprises Vs Sardar Baldev Singh Sokhi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO

¶2

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAYOF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^NO:41 40^{F 2023}

¶6

iii

¶7

Petition Under Arlicle 227 constitution of^{lndia aggrievedby the Order} dated 01.12.2022 made in LA. No.^{1077 ot 2021 in O.S.No. 141 of 2018 on the} file of the Court of the XXVII^{AdditionalChiefJudge,City Civil Court,} Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 M/s. Geetha Enterprises, registered^{Firm, Representedby its Mana} ging Partner B. Jagath kumar, Aged^{about 57 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.1} 0-1473, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶10

B. Jaqath Kumar, S/o.^{B Bataram Aged about 57 years,Occ. Business,Rl/o.} 1 O-1 -4n, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶11

B. Srinivas, S/o. B Balaram^{Aged about 53 years,Occ. Business,F./o. 10-1-} 473, West Marredpally, Secunderabad-

¶12

B. Balaram, S/o. Late B Sayanna,^{Agedabout 82 years,Occ. Business,Rl/o'} 1 0-1 -47 3, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.

¶13

Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs No.1^{to 4} AND

¶14

Sardar Baldev Sing h Sokhi,^{S/o.Late Sardarlnder Singh.Aged 74years,} Occ. Business. R/o. H.No.^{12- 1 0-394151 1 . Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad-} 'r 500009

¶15

Saradar Guruhdev Singh Sokhi, S/o.^{Late Sardar lnder Singh.-Aged} 90^y.ear.s, Occ. Business. R/o. H.No.^{12-10-3941511.Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad-} 500009

¶16

Sardar Biyant Singh Sokhi, S/o. Late Sardar lnder^{Singh,Aged57 years, Occ.} Business, Rl/o. H .No. 12-10-394/5/1, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad^- 500009.

¶17

... RespondenU RespondenUDefendants Nos.1 to³

¶18

,.i, . "'.F.,,tl.,Ecffi.i[*! 'r,;{i,#fiffi''li$g , .rijf iiEt{iaffi.rli.. :1i - r'a,e!i!ll : !l ': '.-...1,.'.,. :ii

ffi

IANo:^10F2023

Petition^{under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stayall} further^{proceedings in O.S No 141 of 2018 pending beforethe XXVIIAdditional} Chief Judge,^{City Civil Court, Secunderabad'}

¶23

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: Sri D'V' SitaramaMurthy'Seniorcounsel appearing} for Sri Kondaparthy^{Kiran Kumar, Advocate}

¶24

Counsel for^{the Respondent No-1} Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'2& 3}

¶25

: None Appeared

¶26

: Ms' Shireen^{Sethna Baria}

¶27

.ri,i
, E;,# .
8ffi.'6,

¶28

The Court made^{the following : ORDER}

¶29

&&d ,;,'
qffin'

¶30

El*
lEr
S:F
. :!" ,q
.;r il

¶31

ffi

¶32

11'

¶33

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICEK. SUJANA} CIVIL REVISION^{PETITION No. 4L4 of2O23}

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Aggrieved^{by the order dated Ol'12'2022 in I'A'No'1077} of 2021^{in O.S.No.141 of 2018passed by the Court of XXVII} Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Secunderabad' the} present^{Civil Revision Petitionis hled for amendmentof} pleadings^{under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151} of CPC.

¶36

I.A.No. lO77^{of 202 1 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs} underorderVlRulelTreadwithSectionl5lofCPCseeking for amendment^{of pleadings'The suit is filed for recovery of} possession^{and mesne prohts in respect of suit schedule} property.^{On 01. t2.2O21, while preparing chief-alidavitof} P.w.l,itcametolightthattherearecertaintypographical mistakes^{in the plaint and further,the petitionercommitted} serious^{mistakewhile giving instructions to his counselat the} time of drafting^{of the plaint and the proposed amendments} a-re necessa-ry^{for proper adjudicationof the matterand it} does not change^{the natureof the plaint'}

¶37

¶38

s(.1./ C.R.P.No.4l4 oI2023

¶39

The proposed amendments^{are to correct the ULC file} number as^G.O.Ms.No.G 1747 l2612l2OOB^{inplace of} G.O.Ms.No.Gl1747/261212008^{in paragraphNo'1 at page} No.3, paragraph^No.5 at^{page No.5, page Nos'7 to 9 and also} in the plaint schedule^{property i.e., wherever it occurs in the} plaint. The petitioners^{also soughtfor amendingthe 'cause of} action paragraph' in the^{plaint and also the limitation} paragraph' in the^{plaintby mentioningthe date of accrual of} cause of action as^{28.02.2018at1O:30 am inplace of} 23.O2.2018 at about^{1 1:00 arn and in the limitation} paragraph as 28.02.2018^{in place of 23.02'2018 and prayed} to permit them^{to amend the plaint accordingly'}

¶40

The respondents hled counter^{allidavit opposing the} petitioner and mainly^{contended that the present petitionwas} filed only in view of^{I.A.No.l50O of 2018 filed by the} respondents under^{OrderVII Rule 1 iCPC for rejectionof} plaint. It is further^{contendedthat the proposed amendment} seeking to delete^{and insert the file number, date, time and} date of limitation cannot^{be said to be typographical errors} and calnot be entertained^{as it shows lack of due diligence on} the part of the^{petitioners and the petitioners are trying to}

¶41

¶42

SKS,J C.R.P.No.4l4 of 2023

¶43

/\ )

¶44

introduce new facts by^way of^{proposed amendment whichis} not permissible and^prayed to^{dismissthe petition.}

¶45

Basing on the same, the trial Court^{permittedto amend} only G.O.Ms. number as^{"G.O.Ms'No.G/747/2612/2OO8" in} place of "G.O.Ms.No.Gll747 12612 l2OO8"^{arrd whereas} dismissed for the amendment^{for cause of action with regard} to the date, time and the^{date of limitation.}

¶46

Heard Sri D. V. Sitarama Murthy,^{learned Senior} Coursel representing Sri Kondaparthy^{Kiran Kumar,learned} counsel for the petitioner^{as well as Sri Shireen Sethna baria,} learned counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondents.}

¶47

7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner^{wouldsubmit that} along with the plaint, they hled complaint^{given to the police} about the said dispossession dated 28.02.2018.^Further,the typographical mistake occurred in the^{plaint with regard to} date was not changed i.e., the date was mentioned^{as '23'} instead of '28'. Further submitted that it will not^{chalge the} cause of action and no^prejudice will^{be caused to the} defendant. Therefore,^prayed the Court^{to allow the petition.}

¶48

¶49

¶50

sK.g.J C.R.P.No.4l4 of2023

¶51

On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondent would submit that the date of cause of action is crucial and the same cannot be amended as it relates to limitation also. He further relied on the Judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case between^,,J, Samuel and. others us. Gdttu Mahesh^qnd orst'.

¶52

Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and the material available on record, petitioner seeks to amend the date of cause of action as^,29, instead of '23' stating that it is typographical mistake. In support of the same, he has aiso frled list of documents along with the plaint, wherein, the document No.2O is the complaint given to police stating that he was dispossessed from the suit property, whereunder, it is shown that the complaint is given on 28.O2.2018 and the time is mentioned as 1O:30 a.m.

¶53

In the Judgment of the Hont)le Supreme Court in the case between "J. Samuel and. others as, Gatht Mq.hesh and ors2", they observed that it requires due diligence and reasonable investigation is necessar5r before certain kjnds of reliefs are requested. In the said case, the petitioner wanted

¶54

| 20l2 (2) scc 3oo

¶55

'?^{zotz 121 scc loo}

¶56

¶57

sKs,-/ C.R.P.No.4l4 of²⁰²³

¶58

ti^</sup>

¶59

to change three to four lines^{in the plaint, under the guise of} typographical error,^{whereas, in the present case,the} petitioner is requesting to amend^{the date and time in the} cause of action^{para of the plaint, which is already mentioned} in the complaint and the^{said document No.20 is filed along} with the suit. Therefore,^{it cannotbe said that it alterscause} of action in the suit or^{bars the limitation,as such, the} petitioner is permitted to^{amend the date and time in the suit} and it is liable to be^allowed.

¶60

11 Accordingly, the CRP is allowed^{setting aside the order} dated 01.12.2022 in LA.No.1077^{of 2O2l in O.S'No.141of} 2018 passed by the Court^{of XXVII Additional Chief Judge,} City Civil Court, Secunderabad.^{There shall be no order as to} costs.

¶61

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, pendingif any,}

¶62

shall stand closed.

¶63

SD/.MOHD.^ISMAIL ASSIS^{TANT REGISTRAR}

/ffRUE^COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To,

2 rhe one xxvil CC to^{Additionar Sri Kondaparthy chlA} tfl::,ff#ltf:gij,B"Jnderabad^l J il: & iI^{rtit".. dnit"in Seinnaearia' AdvocatetoPUCl} 4 Two CD^CoPies YJR kms MY c\P

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110112024

ORDER

_ lEl't
+rgi{
{
II
13 P. HEs r Jii
(
?c fi,t ,q4
'-i:- ,r '-

CRP.No.414 ot 2023

ALLOWING THE CRP

WITHOUT COSTS

tnoo'

M/s. Geetha Enterprises v. Sardar Baldev Singh Sokhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Geetha Enterprises v. Sardar Baldev Singh Sokhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. R.Madhavi Latha Vs S.Surendra Babu

Mrs. Nagulapalli Aruna Vs Taidala Mahender

Raja , Radha Ramulu Vs Panala Prabhakar Reddy

M/s. Shreya Homes Vs Kondakal Sai Reddy

L.Chander Vs Kapil Chits (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd.

State Teachers Union- T.S Vs Doddapaneni Narasimha Rao