Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1472 (AP)

Batchu Laxmepathi v. M. Prakash

2002-12-17

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
( 1 ) THE respondent herein filed O. S. No. 51 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge, Kamareddy, against the petitioner herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction, in respect of the property in Sy. No. 65/1 of Kamareddy revenue Mandal, Nizamabad District. The suit schedule property was described with reference to certain boundaries. The land belonging to the petitioner herein in Sy. No. 72/1 and 72/2 is shown as the eastern boundary. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein filed written statement admitting the fact that his land touches the eastern boundary of the land of the respondent. Subsequent, he filed LA. No. 268/2001 for amendment of the written statement. Through that amend, he wanted to introduce the fact that between the land of the petitioner in Sy. Nos. 72/1 and 72/2 and the land of the respondent in Sy. No. 65/1, there exist another survey number viz. , sy. No. 66. The said IA was dismissed, through order dated 26-3-2002. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) SRI C. R. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is permissible to amend pleadings under order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of cpc as long as no fresh cause of action is introduced and that there was no justification for the trial Court to reject the application filed by the petitioner. It is his contention that what was sought to be introduced by way of amendment was only the correct state of affairs as borne out by the records and if the amendment is not carried out, the adjudication has to take place contrary to the facts reflected in by the record, such as village map. He cited judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court in support of his contention. ( 4 ) SRI C. C. S. Sastry, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that once the petitioner herein had admitted the contention of the respondent with regard to location of the sui t schedule land, through the written statement, it is not open to him to retreat from the same. According to the learned counsel, valuable rights accrue on the basis of such admission and such rights cannot be permitted to be taken away through the amendment. According to the learned counsel, valuable rights accrue on the basis of such admission and such rights cannot be permitted to be taken away through the amendment. ( 5 ) IN the suit, the respondent sought for declaration of title in respect of plot admeasuring 485. 3 sq. yards in Sy. No. 65/1. In the schedule, they furnished the boundaries as under: north. . Land of Malliah south. . Sircilla Road east. . Land in Sy. Nos. 72/1 and 72/2 of Parsi Krishna Murthy, presently the Defendant west. . House of Raja Lingam ( 6 ) THE petitioner filed his written statement. So far as the location of the suit schedule property and the boundaries burnished therefor are concerned, in para 4 of the written statement, after referring to the manner in which he purchased the plot on Sy. Nos. 72/1 and 72/1, pleaded as under: "the total a rea of the said plot is (217. 44) sq. yards and the width of the plot running from East to West, abutting sircilla road is 38" (thirty eight feet ). The said plot touched the Eastern boundary of the land of the plaintiff. " in view of the said pleadings, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is their immediate neighbour stood admitted. By filing I. A. No. 268/2001, he wanted to introduce the version that the plots of the petitioner and the respondent are separated by the land in sy. No. 66. ( 7 ) NORMALLY, the courts should be liberal in permitting the amendments to the pleadings. The reason is that the amendments will enable the parties to put forward the correct state of affairs before the Court and grant of permission to amend would in most of the cases avoid multiplicity of litigation. However, there are certain exceptions to this liberal approach. For example, where the cause of action, which is otherwise barred by law, is sought to be introduced by way of amendment, the same is impermissible. The instances of amendment being allowed or rejected are almost common phenomenon. Law on the subject, emanating from the High courts and the Supreme Court is equally voluminous. ( 8 ) THE principle laid down by the Hon ble supreme Court in Heeralal v. Knlyan Mal and other decided cases in Estralln Rubberv. The instances of amendment being allowed or rejected are almost common phenomenon. Law on the subject, emanating from the High courts and the Supreme Court is equally voluminous. ( 8 ) THE principle laid down by the Hon ble supreme Court in Heeralal v. Knlyan Mal and other decided cases in Estralln Rubberv. Dass estate Private Ltd. and Commissioner of Incomt tax v. Sardar Arjun Singh Ahluwalia relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner certainly governs the matter of amendment to pleadings. The case on hand, however, is on a different footing. The amendment proposed by the petitioner herein had the effect of withdrawing the admission made by him in the written statement, to the effect that he is the immediate neighbour on the eastern side of the respondent. Such an admission has its own effect on the adjudication of the suit and the rights of the parties. If the same is permitted to be withdrawn, it would certainly result in prejudice to the respondent. The law relating to amendment of pleadings, resulting in withdrawal of admissions made earlier, has been dealt with at length by the Hon ble supreme Court in Heeralal case (1 supra ). Having referred to the judgment in Modi spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co. ( AIR 1977 SC 680 ), the supreme Court observed as under:"this decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court is a clear authority for the proposition that once the written statement contains an admission in favour of the plaintiff, by amendment such admission of the defendants cannot be allowed to be withdrawn if such withdrawal would amount to totally displacing the case of the plaintiff and which would cause him irretrievable prejudice. " ( 9 ) THE principle laid down by the Hon ble supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of this case. The trial Court, relied upon the said judgment in dismissing the IA. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the amendment is allowed, the suit has to be decided on a set of pleadings, which run contrary to the records, such as, authenticated map, etc. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that even where there exists any dispute as to extent, etc. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the amendment is allowed, the suit has to be decided on a set of pleadings, which run contrary to the records, such as, authenticated map, etc. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that even where there exists any dispute as to extent, etc. , boundaries will prevail upon that, as held by this Court in Basavapunna Reddy v. Krishnayya. ( 11 ) THESE, however, are matters, which need to be taken into consideration during the trial and while deciding the suit itself. This Court is convinced that the amendment proposed by the petitioner herein is not permissible in law and the trial Court did not commit any irregularity or illegality in rejecting the proposed amendment. ( 12 ) THE CRP is accordingly dismissed. No costs.