Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1432 (AP)

Jannela Umamaheswara Rao v. Voonna Sarveswara Rao

2024-10-14

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2024
ORDER : Subba Reddy Satti, J. 1. The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 02.02.2024 in I.A.No.294 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam. 2. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.292 of 2009 for recovery of possession of plaint schedule property by evicting the 1st defendant and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with plaint schedule property. 3. In the plaint, it was contended that the plaintiffs and their mother filed suit O.S.No.57 of 1973 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam for partition against their father's brothers and others. A preliminary decree was passed on 27.04.1974 for 1/3rd share. A final decree was passed on 19.08.1975. The Amin handed over the property to the plaintiffs on 30.12.1975. The defendants 2 to 16 executed sale deeds in favor of the 1st defendant in respect of Ac.0.62 cents and Ac.0.121/2 cents under two registered sale deeds dated 21.12.2001 on 24.04.2001 mistakenly, for part of the property fell to the share of plaintiffs, by showing wrong boundaries. The 1st defendant, a real estate businessman, occupied the plaint schedule property on 20.08.2009 and hence, the suit was filed. 4. The defendants 1, 6, and 10 filed separate written statements. Defendants 2, 3, 8, 9, 11 to 14 adopted the written statement filed by 10th defendant. The 5th defendant adopted the written statement filed by 6th defendant. 5. The 1st defendant asserted title to the property by virtue of registered sale deeds. Defendants 6 and 10 confirmed the sale deeds in favor of 1st defendant. 6. The trial in the suit was completed and posted for arguments. At that stage, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.294 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint and to add a certain portion at the end of Page No.4 of the plaint and prayer at (a). 7. In the affidavit filed in support of said petition, it was pleaded that the suit is posted for arguments, and on perusal of the plaint, due to inadvertence, the plaintiffs forgot to submit that the documents dated 21.12.2001 and 24.12.2001 executed by J.Janardhana Rao and another is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The said inadvertence is not willful or wanton and hence, the amendment was sought. 8. The said inadvertence is not willful or wanton and hence, the amendment was sought. 8. The 1st defendant filed a counter and opposed the application. 9. The trial Court by order dated 02.02.2024 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 10. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent. 11. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit. He would submit that due to inadvertence, the plaintiffs failed to mention the portion sought to be included by way of amendment. 12. Learned counsel for 1st respondent supported the order of the Court below. 13. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 02.02.2024 in I.A.No.294 of 2023 in O.S.No.292 of 2009 suffers from illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 14. Suit O.S.No.292 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking the following relief: a) Plaintiffs suit be decreed for recovery of the plaint schedule property after evicting the 1st defendant from the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiffs into vacant possession of the plaint schedule property as the 1st defendant has no right whatsoever in the plaint schedule property derived from the defendant; b) For consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaint schedule property in any manner whatsoever. 15. In Paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was specifically contended that the defendants 2 to 16 and some others executed sale deeds in favor of the 1st defendant for an extent of Ac.0.62 cents and Ac.0.121/2 cents on 21.12.2001 and 24.04.2001. It was further averred that "they have mistakenly sold the property which fell to the share of these plaintiffs by showing wrong boundaries. The plaint schedule property is covered by Patta No.52, old Sy.No.20, new Sy.No.23/1, Ac.0.77 cents out of Ac.2.30 cents". The 1st defendant occupied the land on 20.08.2009. 16. The 1st defendant, the purchaser of the property, pleaded about the purchase of the property. The defendants 6 and 10 filed separate written statements and confirmed the alienations in favour of 1st defendant in respect of aforementioned properties. The 1st defendant occupied the land on 20.08.2009. 16. The 1st defendant, the purchaser of the property, pleaded about the purchase of the property. The defendants 6 and 10 filed separate written statements and confirmed the alienations in favour of 1st defendant in respect of aforementioned properties. After the trial was concluded and when the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiffs are now asking for amendment, which reads thus: At the end of Page-4 of the plaint, by adding at "the sale deeds dated 21.12.2001 and 24.12.2001 executed by them are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs" and also in prayer portion (a) after the sentence the 1st defendant has no right whatsoever in the plaint schedule property derived from defendants 2 to 21 as "the sale deeds dated 21.12.2001 and 24.12.2001 executed by them are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs". 17. As seen from the proposed amendment, in a way, the plaintiffs for the first time are pleading that the documents i.e. registered sale deeds dated 21- 12-2001 and 24-12-2001 do not bind them. Such a plea was not made at the inception. It is not the case of plaintiffs that they are not aware of the transaction. In fact, as discussed supra, in the plaint itself, it was pleaded about these two sale deeds. The reason mentioned in the affidavit is "due to inadvertence". 18. The proviso added to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by way of amendment in the year 2002, specifically bars the amendment after commencement of trial. The only exception is despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue before the commencement of trial. 19. As discussed supra, in the case at hand, the plaintiffs having pleaded in the plaint in the year 2009 about the sale deeds and having contended that the defendants 2 to 16 mistakenly sold the property fell to the share of plaintiffs, by showing wrong boundaries, asking for amendment of plaint when the suit is coming up for arguments is only to procrastinate the proceedings. No reason much less valid reason was assigned. In fact, evidence is on record, and documents are also marked. At this stage amending the plaint, in the considered opinion of this Court, is impermissible. The Court below considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. 20. No reason much less valid reason was assigned. In fact, evidence is on record, and documents are also marked. At this stage amending the plaint, in the considered opinion of this Court, is impermissible. The Court below considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. 20. The order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, brooks interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any merit in this revision and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Petition Dismissed