Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 140 (AP)

Jayanthi v. K. L. Narayana

2013-02-26

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
ORDER The 1st respondent filed OS No. 172 of 2002 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale against the sole defendant, Sri Giriraj. The sole defendant died and his legal representatives, the petitioner herein and her mother, the 2nd respondent herein, came on record. They have also filed an additional written statement. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded. At that stage, the petitioner filed IA No. 782 of 2012 under Rule 9 of Order 8 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement. She pleaded that in the recent past, she came to know about the role said to have been played by one Sri D.V. Gopal Rao, an Advocate, who at one point of time, is said to have appeared in their favour, and on some other occasions, against them. The gist of her plea was that the written statement filed by the original defendant was under the guidance of Sri D.V. Gopal Rao and certain facts were not correctly stated. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 20.9.2012. Hence, this revision. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the legal representatives of the original defendant. The suit filed in the year 2002 for the relief of specific performance did not record much of progress for one reason or the ether. When the petitioner and the 2nd respondent came on record, it was open to them to file independent written statements, even at variance with what was filed by the original defendant. However, they did not feel the necessity of filing any fresh or additional written statement on their behalf. As a matter of fact, they have adopted the written statement filed by the original defendant. 4. At one point of time, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent filed additional written statement. The contentions touching upon limitation and the maintainability of the suit were raised, in addition to dealing with the plea that was introduced through amendment of the plaint, through which relief of refund of the amount paid as advance, was introduced. 5. 4. At one point of time, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent filed additional written statement. The contentions touching upon limitation and the maintainability of the suit were raised, in addition to dealing with the plea that was introduced through amendment of the plaint, through which relief of refund of the amount paid as advance, was introduced. 5. Through the proposed additional written statement, the petitioner proposes to raise a plea pertaining to the very character of the suit schedule property, particularly in the light of the recent legislative changes. An attempt is also sought to be made to find fault with the text of the written statement filed by the original defendant. 6. Parliament has inserted the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC with an objective of discouraging indiscriminate amendments to pleadings. Though the attempt of the petitioner is to file additional statement, in effect, it amounts to amendment of a written statement which is already on record. What is prohibited by law, if done directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. An additional written statement, which answers the description of further pleading can be filed, mostly, to deal with a specific situation that has taken place after the pleadings in a suit are complete. Strong and acceptable reasons are needed to enable a party to file additional written statement 10 years after the suit was filed, that too when it is sought to be presented in the absence of any amendment to the plaint. 7. The reason pleaded by the petitioner, viz., role said to have been played by an Advocate, Sri D.V. Gopal Rao, is hardly acceptable. Even according to the petitioner, she engaged the same Advocate in ATC No. 1/2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum -Special Officer, A.P. Tenancy Tribunal, Kuppam. Further, it is not stated that any complaint has been submitted to the Bar Council attributing acts of misconduct to the said Advocate. At any rate, the petitioner is taking a stand, which is not subscribed by her mother, the 2nd respondent herein. When the father of the petitioner did not have any grievance vis-a-vis Sri Gopal Rao, the petitioner cannot assume to herself and denigrate a third party. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. The suit is pending for the past 13 years. It cannot be kept pending any longer. 8. When the father of the petitioner did not have any grievance vis-a-vis Sri Gopal Rao, the petitioner cannot assume to herself and denigrate a third party. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. The suit is pending for the past 13 years. It cannot be kept pending any longer. 8. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take up the matter on day-to-day basis and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of.