Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 471 (AP)

Rakesh Bhatia v. G. Parimala

2005-06-09

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2005
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises under peculiar circumstances. ( 2 ) THE petitioners filed O. S. No. 35 of 2002 in the Court of the VIII Additional senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents for recovery of a sum of rs. 3,83,000/ -. The respondents filed written statements denying their liability. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence was closed. At that stage, the first respondent came forward with I. A. No. 108 of 2004 under Rule 17 of Order 6 C. P. C. stating that she noticed certain interpolations in the plaint, which according to her were made at a subsequent stage. She sought permission of the Court to effect necessary amendments in the written statement, to deal with the alleged interpolations in the plaint. The application was resisted by the petitioners. The trial Court, however, passed an order, dated 20-12-2004 permitting the first respondent to carry out the amendments. The same is challenged in this revision. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court committed an error, in according permission to amend the written statement, without ascertaining as to what precisely, the proposed amendment is. He submits that taking advantage of the permission accorded by the trial Court under the order under revision, the first respondent added about twenty paragraphs in the written statement, making baseless and irresponsible allegations. He contends that the very permission accorded by the trial Court through the order under revision is contrary to law. ( 4 ) SRI Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that by the very nature of the sentences interpolated into the plaint, at a later stage, elaborate explanation was needed and the first respondent did nothing more than that. He contends that the allegations as to the fraud played by the petitioners in relation to the said interpolations on the Court itself needed to be dealt with as an independent issue and as such no exception can be taken to the order under revision. ( 5 ) WHENEVER, a party to the suit proposes to effect amendment to his pleadings, he is required to come forward with the actual text of the amendment. ( 5 ) WHENEVER, a party to the suit proposes to effect amendment to his pleadings, he is required to come forward with the actual text of the amendment. It is only when the text is available, that the court would be in a position to examine as to whether the amendment is permissible, on the touchstone of cause of action, new case etc. A Court cannot grant blanket permission under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. to any party to undertake amendments of its choice. This, unfortunately, is what exactly happened in the present case. ( 6 ) THE first respondent complained that the petitioners have interpolated certain paragraphs into the plaint, by manipulating the record. The trial Court appears to have been felt concerned in the context of allegations as to manipulation of record and accorded permission to the first respondent to carry out necessary amendments. On the basis of the permission accorded through the order under revision, the first respondent had carried extensive amendments, which, in fact, tripled the size of the written statement. ( 7 ) IT is true that the first respondent is entitled to plead the circumstances that led to the amendment of the written statement as well as to deal with the allegations introduced through the sentences said to have been included in the plaint at a later point of time. However, under the guise of the same, the first respondent cannot deviate from the nature of actual controversy, and plead the facts which are outside the scope of the suit. ( 8 ) PLEADINGS are required to be precise and to the point. A distinction always needs to be maintained between the case sought to be presented by the party and the facts which are required to supplement the same. While the former can constitute the pleadings, the latter is always a matter of evidence. If the pleadings are elaborate and imprecise, the adjudication becomes equally complicated and it would be difficult for the parties as well as the Court to discern the actual area of controversy. It is apt to refer to Rule 2 (1) of Order VI C. P. C. It reads"2. If the pleadings are elaborate and imprecise, the adjudication becomes equally complicated and it would be difficult for the parties as well as the Court to discern the actual area of controversy. It is apt to refer to Rule 2 (1) of Order VI C. P. C. It reads"2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence : (1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not me evidence by which they are to be proved. " ( 9 ) THOUGH this Court does not approve of the practice adopted by the trial Court in permitting the amendment of the written statement without knowing the text of it, it is not felt necessary to interfere with the same because of the subsequent developments. It is represented that on the basis of the amendment, an additional issue was framed and the evidence was recorded to certain extent on that. It is not proper to scuttle the proceedings at this stage. However, it must be made clear that the trial Court shall not take into account any portion of the written statement, particularly the one introduced through the amendment, except to the extent it is relevant, to answer the additional issue, framed in this regard. ( 10 ) THROUGH several directions issued, earlier this Court directed that the suit be disposed of at the earliest. The same are reiterated and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from today. ( 11 ) THE civil revision petition is dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.