Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1037 (AP)

Nandi Jayalalitha v. Palegar Rangaswamy Naidu

2025-08-22

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This revision petition is filed by the respondent No.1/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.07.2025 allowing I.A.No.261 of 2022 in O.S.No.187 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District filed by the plaintiff under Order I, Rule 10 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the respondents No.2 and 3 in the suit. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit against the revision petitioner/sole defendant for the relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule land and for consequential injunction. Pending the suit, I.A.No.261 of 2022 was filed with the prayer to implead the respondents No.2 and 3 as defendants No.2 and 3, whereas the consequential amendments sought are regarding cancellation of the rectification deeds dated 17.07.2013 bearing Nos.2027/2013 and 2028/2013 obtained by the respondent No.2 through the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda vide E.P.No.4 of 13 in O.S.No.22 of 2012. The contents of the affidavit state about the reasons for seeking cancellation of the rectification deeds and the consequential amendments read as below: “Consequential amendment: 1. The following may be added as para 4 (a) to the plaint: “4 (a) the mother of the defendant allegedly gifted the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendant as per the averments in the written statement of the defendant, but it is stated the survey number was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.107/3 instead of Sy.No.107/4 and 113/1. About one month back the plaintiff came to know that, the defendant got filed a frivolous suit în O.S.22/12 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Pattikonda through her mother i.e., P.Rangamma alias Lakshmi Devi (defendant No.2) against one P.Lakshmi Devi described as w/o Late P.Ramappa Naidu alias P.Rama Naidu C/o Pulathota Rangaswamy of Rajapuram Village (defendant No.3) for execution of rectification deed, by correcting the survey numbers. I submit the said P.Rangamma i.e., defendant No.2 herein had no right to file the suit O.S.22/12 on the file of junior civil judge court, Pattikonda by suppressing the filing of the above case. By playing fraud on court the suit O.S.22/12 was got decreed and E.P.4/13 in O.S.22/12 was filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Pattikonda and a registered rectification deeds dt.17.07.2013 was obtained by defendant No.2 bearing Nos.2027/13 and 2028/13. By playing fraud on court the suit O.S.22/12 was got decreed and E.P.4/13 in O.S.22/12 was filed on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Pattikonda and a registered rectification deeds dt.17.07.2013 was obtained by defendant No.2 bearing Nos.2027/13 and 2028/13. The said registered rectification deeds were brought into existence during pendency of the above case and the same are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. So, the defendants 2 and 3 are also proper and necessary parties to the suit.” 2. Add the following as para 5 (2) to the plaint: “5(2) the market value of the property shown in the rectification deed dt. 17.7.2013 bearing No.2027/13 is Rs.35,000. A court fee of Rs.1,966 is paid. The market value of property shown in registered rectification deed bearing No.2028/13 is Rs.39,000 and a court fee of Rs.2,086 is paid. In all a court fee of Rs 4,052 is paid under Sec 37(A) of A.P. Court Fee Act.” 3. Add the following as para 6(i)(a) to the plaint. “6(i)(a) for cancellation of rectification deeds dt.17.07.2013 bearing nos.2027/13 and 2028/13 obtained by the 2 nd defendant through the Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda vide E.P.4/13 in O.S.22/12.” 3. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the sole defendant/respondent No.1/revision petitioner opposing the petition answering all the statements made with regard to the cancellation of the rectification deeds and further stating that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation; that the decree obtained in O.S.No.22 of 2012 is valid and binding on the parties to the suit; that the petitioner/plaintiff had forged a will to knock away the entire suit schedule property belonging to this respondent; that the plaintiff had knowledge of the decree in O.S.No.22 of 2012 but kept quite all these years; that the petition was filed only to drag on the matter and harass this respondent who is not a party to the rectification deeds; that the plaintiff is not entitled to cancellation of the rectification deeds; that the proposed amendment would cause injustice to this respondent; and that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. 4. The respondent No.3 in the petition also filed a separate counter stating that neither the petitioner/plaintiff nor the respondents No.1 and 2 have any right in the suit schedule property and that she has been continuing to be in possession of the suit schedule property, however, she reported no objection to implead her as one of the defendants to the suit to enable her to contest the same. 5. The respondent No.2 is the mother of the respondent No.1. 6. The trial Court passed a cryptic order on 07.07.2025 as follows: “Heard both sides. Perused case record. For the reasons stated in petition and affidavit and keeping in view limitation and other objections this Court allowed this petition in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to decide this case on merits. However, in view of facts and circumstances of this order additional issue will be framed after hearing both sides. Accordingly, this petition is allowed (on costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to respondent) as prayed for.” 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. A perusal of the copy of the petition in I.A.No.261 of 2022 shows that the petition was filed under Order I, Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to implead the respondents Nos.2 and 3 as the defendants No.2 and 3, but, the consequential amendments sought (noted above), though relate to the facts due to which the impleadment of the additional defendants is necessitated, they do not contain the amendments which are normally required in the short and long cause title after impleading the parties. Furthermore, the consequential amendments indicate only the facts regarding the relief of cancellation of the rectification deeds. It is important to note that the consequential amendments 2 and 3 clearly speak about amendment of the prayer in the plaint. 9. Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., as such, does not require amendment to the pleadings. However, as impleadment of some other party requires additional pleading(s) with regard to cause of action against that party, it is necessary to seek consequential amendments which are essentially to the cause titles and may also to the other pleadings, unless the existing pleadings are adequate. Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., as such, does not require amendment to the pleadings. However, as impleadment of some other party requires additional pleading(s) with regard to cause of action against that party, it is necessary to seek consequential amendments which are essentially to the cause titles and may also to the other pleadings, unless the existing pleadings are adequate. As they are amendments to the existing pleadings, it is governed by Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice mandates a prayer for all consequential amendments in an application for amendment made under Order I, Rule 10; Order VI, Rule 17; or Order XXII of C.P.C. Thus, in an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., all necessary consequential amendments shall be sought. But, they relate to changes in the cause titles and some pleadings narrating the facts/cause of action against them. 10. The amendment relating to addition of a new prayer sought in the present case is not just a consequence to the addition of the party. In fact, only for the purpose of cancellation of the rectification deeds, the addition of the parties is required as the said relief directly affects the interest of the proposed parties. Therefore, the main purpose is to seek the proposed amendment to the prayer in the plaint by adding cancellation of the rectification deeds. Such amendment of prayer can be ordered under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., but not merely under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. Even in an application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. for mere addition of a party, Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. is required to be followed for the purpose of consequential amendment(s). When the main purpose is to bring change in the nature of the relief in the suit, like in the present suit, the plaintiff ought to have stated both the provisions of law and the necessary consequential amendments. The considerations under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. are different from those under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. 11. When the main purpose is to bring change in the nature of the relief in the suit, like in the present suit, the plaintiff ought to have stated both the provisions of law and the necessary consequential amendments. The considerations under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. are different from those under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. 11. Though citing provision of law is not material always, in the present case since the prayer is for one relief and the consequential amendments sought are for the other relief, and the Court had not gone into the provision relating to amendment of the plaint for allowing the petition, it is clear that the impugned order is devoid of merits, not only for the above reasons, for further reason that the contention raised regarding the bar of limitation had not been answered. That apart, with regard to bar of limitation, it is also examined whether the petitioner/plaintiff had knowledge of the decree so as to come to a just conclusion about the bar of limitation to allow or reject the amendment sought with regard to additional prayer for cancellation of the rectification of documents. 12. For the above reasons, the impugned order is meritless and needs to be set aside. However, the petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh petition seeking appropriate reliefs and citing the appropriate provision of law in view of the above observations in the order. Thereafter, the respondents are also at liberty to file fresh affidavits in response to the new petition. Thereafter, the trial Court shall adjudicate the matter giving due regard to the contentions and assigning proper reasons. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 07.07.2025 in I.A.No.261 of 2022 in O.S.No.187 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District with the above directions to the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.