Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 183 (TS)

J. Naga Jyothi v. K. Amarender Reddy

2022-03-11

A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

body2022
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the orders, dated 16.11.2016, in I.A.No.909 of 2016 in O.S.No.1355 of 2011, on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this application in I.A.No.909 of 2016 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ÇPC’) with a prayer for amendment of the plaint. The Court below has allowed the said application permitting the plaintiff to carry out the necessary amendments as prayed for. Assailing the said order, the sole defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds: (i) The trial Court has grossly erred in allowing the application. (ii) The proposed amendment has changed the nature of the suit which is not permissible. (iii) The trial Court has erred in holding that plaintiff is not seeking any cancellation of document. In fact, a declaration was sought to the effect that the documents are null and void. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Detailed submissions have been made by the learned counsel for both the parties, which are more or less on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer to in detail such submissions. However, the submissions so made have received due consideration of this Court. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit. 5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property. The defendant has filed his written statement, issues were settled. At that stage, this application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is filed for amendment of the plaint by introducing the subsequent events and also to amend the prayer portion. 6. The defendant has filed his written statement, issues were settled. At that stage, this application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is filed for amendment of the plaint by introducing the subsequent events and also to amend the prayer portion. 6. Though initially the suit is filed for perpetual injunction, through the proposed amendment the plaintiff has prayed to amend the plaint by incorporating prayer (aa) after prayer (a) to the effect that the Sale Deed bearing Document No.2913 of 1980, dated 26.12.1980, in the office of SRO, Maredpally; Sale Deed bearing Document No.4870 of 1993, dated 30.08.1993, in the office of SRO, Maredpally; and the Sale Deed bearing Document No.1253 of 2006 dated 15.02.2006, in the office of SRO, Malkajgiri, and registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.1720 of 2011, dated 22.07.2011, in favour of M.Murali Krishna may be declared as null and void and not binding on him. However the defendant has raised objection to the effect that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit and it goes against the findings recorded in O.S.No.156 of 2000. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant seeks to submit that the following dates are very much crucial in considering that the plaintiff is not entitled for the proposed amendment. The original suit is filed in the month of June, 2011. In March, 2012, written statement is filed, whereas the present application with the proposed amendment for cancellation of registered documents is filed on 01.09.2016 i.e., after four years to the defendant filing the written statement with an allegation that in view of the averments in the written statement, amendment is necessary. He has further argued that evidence affidavit of P.W.1 is filed. The witness is to be cross-examined. There is no diligence on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that in view of the written statement filed by defendant, the proposed amendment is essential and unless suit is amended with the relief of cancellation of the said documents to the effect that they are not binding on the plaintiff, he would suffer irreparable injury and that proposed amendment is very much essential to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 9. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant relied on the following judgments: (i) Vasant Balu Patil and others v. Mohan Hirachand Shah and others [(2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 530]; (ii) Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (dead) through legal representatives v. Ahsanul Ghani [(2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases 415; and (iii) M.Revanna v. Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives and others [(2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 332. 10. Whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the following decision: (i) Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Ors [ AIR 2002 SC 3369 ]. 11. Order VI Rule 17 CPC deals with amendment of pleadings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and others, AIR 2009 SC 1433 at paragraph 14 held as under: “14. It is the primary duty of the Court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 12. In N.C. Bansal v. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and others, (2018) 2 SCC 347 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC held that when a suit is still at initial stage i.e., when the trial has not yet begun or where the proposed amendment could not change the nature of cause of action or where applications are not filed at belated stage, Court should be liberal in allowing the proposed amendment. 13. The law is well settled that procedure is hand made of justice and procedural hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of Court while doing substantial justice. If procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must always lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violations (Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives and another v. P.Raj Kumar represented by his power agent Imam Ali, (2020) 10 SCC 706 ). 14. If procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, Courts must always lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violations (Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives and another v. P.Raj Kumar represented by his power agent Imam Ali, (2020) 10 SCC 706 ). 14. In Vasant Balu Patil and others v. Mohan Hirachand Shah and others, (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 530, in a suit for declaration of title and injunction, amendment was allowed. Defendants have challenged it with regard to limitation. Whereas in Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (dead) through legal representatives v. Ahsanul Ghani, (2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases 415, it was belated prayer for introducing the amendment. Accordingly, considering the facts of the case, it was not allowed. In the case of M.Revanna v. Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives and others, (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 332, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that whenever an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is filed after commencement of the trial, burden is on the person seeking the amendment to show “due diligence” and bona fides of prayer for amendment, which would not cause any prejudice to other side. 15. In Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Ors, AIR 2002 SC 3369 relied by the plaintiffs on identical facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, when during pendency of the suit, if plaintiff is forcefully dispossessed by the defendant, amendment seeking the relief for declaration of title to suit property and consequential delivery of possession is justified. 16. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, originally the plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction, but the defendant has taken several pleas in the written statement. Considering the pleadings in the written statement, the plaintiff has filed an application to amend the pleadings. As per the orders in I.A.No.705 of 2016, dated 02.11.2016, and as per the orders in I.A.No.837 of 2016, dated 02.11.2016, pleadings were amended earlier. These orders are not challenged by the defendant, whereas through the proposed amendment vide I.A.No.909 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016, the plaintiff has sought for including a prayer in para 15 for cancellation of certain registered documents. The proposed prayer is almost consequential to the amendments that are incorporated in para 9A and 10a introducing the subsequent events. 17. These orders are not challenged by the defendant, whereas through the proposed amendment vide I.A.No.909 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016, the plaintiff has sought for including a prayer in para 15 for cancellation of certain registered documents. The proposed prayer is almost consequential to the amendments that are incorporated in para 9A and 10a introducing the subsequent events. 17. That apart, it is the case of the plaintiffs that only during pendency of the suit when the defendant has filed the written statement, he has come to know about the said Sale Deeds bearing Document No.2913 of 1980, dated 26.12.1980, Document No.4870 of 1993, dated 30.08.1993, and Document No.1253 of 2006 dated 15.02.2006, and registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.1720 of 2011, dated 22.07.2011. Since the plaintiff was allowed to bring the subsequent events on record and these registered Sale Deeds relate to those events, in my considered opinion, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for. It is for the trial Court to appreciate the pleadings with reference to the material available on record after full length of trial. In such facts and circumstances of the case, in view of earlier amendments as indicated above, no prejudice would cause to the defendant if the plaintiff is permitted to bring the proposed amendments in the plaint. 18. The principles laid down in the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the defendant are not helpful to the defendant. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts in the reported decisions. In the case on hand, earlier two amendments were permitted introducing subsequent events in para 9A and 10a of the plaint as per the orders in I.A.Nos.705 of 2016 and 837 of 2016 respectively and these orders were not challenged by the defendant. It is these sale deeds and some other connected registered documents, the plaintiff now sought for cancellation through the proposed amendment in I.A.No.909 of 2016 by introducing additional prayer in para 15 after 15(a). Therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the order is sustained. 19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. 20. Therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the order is sustained. 19. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs. 20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.