Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 243 (AP)

Kondagani Rajeshwar Rao v. Gandu Sammaiah

2003-02-14

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2003
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) I. A. NO. 60 of 2003 filed under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of C. P. C. seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that permission to amend pleadings cannot be granted after commencement of the trial. Hence, this Revision. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the suit for recoveryof possession of the plaint schedule property from the revision petitioners, alleging that the first petitioner who had taken the suit property on oral lease and is continuing in possession thereof as a tenant holding over is trying to induct third parties into possession thereof on the basis that he himself is the owner of the property. The first Petitioner filed his written statement denying the title of the respondent to the suit property and alleging that he prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession. ( 3 ) AFTER the trial of the suit was taken up,revision petitioners filed I. A. No. 60 of 2003 seeking permission to incorporate a plea in the written statement of the 1st respondent (sic. petitioner) that the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court inasmuch the father of the 1st respondent (sic. petitioner) was a protected tenant in respect of the suit property and that the earlier plea relating to acquisition of title by long standing possession may be deleted. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT filed his countercontesting the petition. As stated earlier the petition was dismissed on the ground that pleadings cannot be permitted to be amended after the commencement of trial. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counselfor the revision petitioners is that the observation made by the learned trial Judge that the counsel for the petitioners was not present in the court is not correct and that the counsel for the revision petitioners in fact was there in the court hall and yet the trial Court for reasons not known to the petitioners, made such an observation in the order. It is his contention that the pleadings can be amended even after the commencement of trial when he is able to establish that in spite of his due diligence he could not raise such plea before the commencement of trial and since there was sufficient ground for the revision petitioners not raising the pleas now taken in the original written statement the order under revision is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) RULE 17 of Order 6 C. P. C. as amendedby Act 22 of 2002 reads as under:"amendment of Pleadings: The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. " ( 7 ) IT is therefore very clear that unless thecourt comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party seeking amendment could not have raised the plea intended to be taken, it should not allow amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. First revision petitioner filed his written statement on 12-3-2001, taking a specific plea in Para 7 that even if the respondent (plaintiff) or his father had title to the suit property, they lost it by virtue of his adverse possession. When it is the specific case of the revision petitioners that they prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession, it is clear that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 60 of 2003 does not state anything as to how and when the petitioners came to know that the father of the first petitioner was a protected tenant in respect of the suit land. At this stage I feel it relevant to extract Para 1 of the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 60 of 2003. At this stage I feel it relevant to extract Para 1 of the affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 60 of 2003. It read:"at the time of filing of my written statement, I had not informed my advocate while preparing the written statement, that my father was a protected tenant to the suit schedule property. After the death of my father the property was inherited by me". Which, if true, means that even by the date of filing of the written statement, revision petitioners were aware that the father of the first petitioner was a protected tenant in respect of the suit property. So, it is clear that even though revision petitioners was aware that the father of the first petitioner was the protected tenant in respect of the suit property they chose to take a plea that they have acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession i. e. , by prescription. Therefore, it cannot be said that their not taking of the plea of protected tenancy in the original written statement was due to inadvertence. On the other hand it is clear that they deliberately took the plea of adverse possession. Therefore, the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC comes into operation and so, I find no ground to interfere with the conclusion of the learned trial Judge that the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) 1 do not wish to go into the questionwhether the observation of the learned trial judge relating to there being no representation on behalf of the revision petitioners at the time of hearing, is true or not, because it is well settled that correctness of the observation made by the court in relation to the events that took place in the court cannot be challenged in superior courts and the party aggrieved has to approach the concerned court only, and seek rectification of the observations made as superior Court cannot sit in judgment over those observations. Therefore, I cannot go into the questions whether the observation made in the order about there being no representation on behalf of the revision petitioners in the trial Court is true or not. Therefore, I cannot go into the questions whether the observation made in the order about there being no representation on behalf of the revision petitioners in the trial Court is true or not. The revision petitioners, if so advised, are at liberty to approach the trial court and seek for modification of the observations, and it is open to the trial Court either to delete or not to delete those observations from its order. The revision petition for the above reasons, is dismissed. No costs.