Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 652 (AP)

G. Pafimmala v. Bimala Bhatia

2004-07-06

M.NARAYANA REDDY

body2004
( 1 ) THESE Orders, according to Law, arises out of a Civil Revision Petition filed by the sole revision petitioner, against R-1 to R-3, under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, 1950, questioning the, validity and legality of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) ORDERS, dated 25-08-2003, of the court of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad (Trial Court), made in IA no. 815/2003, in OS No. 692/2002, of its file. ( 3 ) PERUSED the Record. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for both the parties. ( 5 ) THE sole revision petitioner herein correspond to R-2 in the said IA No. 815/ 2003, and D-2 in that OS No. 692/2003, both, of the file of the said Trial Court. R-1 and r-2 herein correspond, respectively, to the applicants 1 and 2 in that IA, and plaintiffs 1 and 2 in that suit. R-3 herein corresponds to r-l in that IA, and D-1 in that suit. ( 6 ) THE parties are, here-in-after, referred to, as such, as in that suit, lest, so specified. ( 7 ) INTER alia, that OS No. 692/2002, filed by the two plaintiffs against D-l to D-3, for recovery of monies, covered by the FDRs, etc. , was at the stage of arguments, after the trial thereof, by recording and receiving oral and documentary evidence therein. ( 8 ) AT that stage of the suit, the two plaintiffs filed therein, the said IA No. 815/2003, against D-l to D-3 therein, under Rule 17 of order VI, C. P. C. , read with Sections 151 and 153, thereof, and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of practice, framed there-under, for amendment of the plaint, by incorporating there-in, an additional plea, by way of alternative relief, to the effect of directing D-2, to declare the loan contracted by D-l, and, thereby, to enable D-l to release the property documents of the plaintiffs, claiming that, omission of such relief, in the suit, is not willful, etc. ( 9 ) D-2 filed a counter to that LA. No. 815/ 2003, opposing the same. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, after due enquiry into that IA No. 815 of 2003, the said Trial Court adjudicated there upon, by its now impugned orders, allowing the same, and permitting the amendment sought for etc. ,. ( 9 ) D-2 filed a counter to that LA. No. 815/ 2003, opposing the same. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, after due enquiry into that IA No. 815 of 2003, the said Trial Court adjudicated there upon, by its now impugned orders, allowing the same, and permitting the amendment sought for etc. ,. ( 11 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, hence, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, d-2 filed the present CRP, as set forth in para 1, supra, read with para 2, supra. ( 12 ) IT is vehemently urged for the D-2, that, because, the said IA for amendment was filed after commencement of trial of the suit, and, so to say, after completion of trial thereof, and, while it was at the stage of arguments, as set forth in para 7, supra, no such amendment, at such stage of the suit, is permissible, as provided and forbidden by the Proviso of Rule 17 of Order VI, C. P. C. , incorporated by C. P. C. Amendment act, 2002, which came into force, on 1-7-2002. ( 13 ) WHILE so, the plaintiff in the suit was filed in the said Trial Court, for the first time, on 31-7-2001. ( 14 ) WHEN so, by virtue of Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the C. P. C. (Amendment Act), 2002, the proviso to rule 17 of Order VI, does not apply, because, that Rule 17, including the proviso, was inserted by the said Amendment Act of 2002, and came into effect, only from 1-7-2002. That is, about one year after the filing of the plaint. ( 15 ) IN fact, this High Court, in Bogirouthu suryakantham and another v. Kandhi sanyasinaidu (2004 (1) An. W. R. 380 (A. P.) = ( 2004 (2) ALD 290 ), relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, inter alia, postulated, that, the amended Rule 17 of Order VI, C. P. C, as inserted by CPC Amendment Act of 2002, will not apply to suits filed prior to that amendment, etc. ,. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, also, relied upon the 4 Rulings of the Supreme court, inter alia, interpreting Rule 17 of order VI, C. P. C. . They are set forth, hereunder:- 1. Lakshminarasimhachari v. Sri agastheswaraswamivaru 2. Haridas Aildas v. Godrej Rustom; and 3. G. Nagammma v. Siromanamma. ,. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, also, relied upon the 4 Rulings of the Supreme court, inter alia, interpreting Rule 17 of order VI, C. P. C. . They are set forth, hereunder:- 1. Lakshminarasimhachari v. Sri agastheswaraswamivaru 2. Haridas Aildas v. Godrej Rustom; and 3. G. Nagammma v. Siromanamma. ( 17 ) AFTER examining the impugned Orders, vis-a-vis, the facts and circumstances of the respective cases, relied upon for the plaintiffs, and set forth, supra, vis-a-vis, the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties, I am fully satisfied with the impugned Orders, allowing the amendment, and see, no valid, or, legal reason, to interfere therewith, on a question of Fact, or Law, or Illegality, or infirmity, or Perversity, or abnormality, and the like, ( 18 ) HENCE, the impugned Orders are not liable to be interfered, on any such ground, or, grounds, and, hence, are liable to be confirmed toto, as such. ( 19 ) HENCE, the CRP is liable to be dismissed, in toto, as such, as is being done, hereunder. ( 20 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the CRP, dismissing the same, in toto; No costs.