Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 955 (AP)

Ghouse Ali Khan v. Ameena Begum

2008-11-07

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2008
ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-03-2008 passed in IANo.1068 of 2007 in O.S. No 612 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/1st defendant seeking certain amendments In the written statement. 2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff. She filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the A to D schedule properties. The petitioner/1st defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. He took the plea that his father sold the properties mentioned in the 'A' schedule of the plaint during his lifetime. He further took the plea that his father during his lifetime gifted 'B and C' schedule properties to him. He stated in para. 4 of the written statement that the plaintiff herself sold the 'B' schedule properties and utilized the sale proceeds. After filing written statement, the petitioner/1st defendant came to know that a mistake has been crept in paras 4 and 5 of the written statement with regard to the mentioning of the schedule of the properties, which have been sold by the plaintiff Therefore, he filed I.A.No.1068 of 2007 seeking amendment of the written statement. The plaintiff resisted the application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner/1st defendant sought amendment of the written statement at a belated stage, by order dated 13-03-2008. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 27-06-2008. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st defendant submits that though the petitioner/1st defendant sought for amendment of paras 2, 4 and 5 of the written statement, the petitioner/1st defendant is not pressing with regard to the amendment of para. 2 of the written statement. He further submits that the description of the schedule of the properties has been wrongly mentioned in paras 4 and 5 of the written statement inadvertently and therefore, the said mistake is required to be rectified. 6. 2 of the written statement. He further submits that the description of the schedule of the properties has been wrongly mentioned in paras 4 and 5 of the written statement inadvertently and therefore, the said mistake is required to be rectified. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and dismissed the application and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is not required to be interfered in this Civil Revision Petition. 7. I have gone through the written statement filed by the petitioner/1st defendant. In para 3 of the written statement he has specifically pleaded that his father gifted 'B and C' schedule properties to him. While coming to the paras 4 and 5, he stated that the properties covered under 'B' schedule have been sold by the plaintiff. The petitioner/1st defendant after realizing the mistake of the description of the properties, which have been disposed of by the father of the plaintiff, came up with an application seeking amendment. The entire reading of the written statement indicates that the petitioner/1st defendant claiming the 'B and C' schedule properties based on the oral gift said to have been made by his father. With regard to the properties detailed in 'D' schedule, according to the petitioner/1st defendant, they have been disposed of during the lifetime of his father. The mistake of the description of the properties in paras 4 and 5 of the written statement apparently is a clerical mistake. The petitioner/1st defendant came up with proper explanation for amending the written statement. The trial Court without going into the material brought on record in right perspective proceeded to dismiss the application. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed permitting the petitioner/1st defendant to amend the paras 4 and 5 of the written statement filed in O.S.No.612 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. No order as to costs.