Jonna Srinivas Reddy v. J. Sudha

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

'

ATHYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON NO: 3'r89 0F 2023 Petition filed Under Article 227 of constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 14-09-2023 lN 1.A.No.555 ot 2O23 in O S'No 1198 of 2f.22 on the file of the CourtofthellAdditionalseniorCivilJudgeatKushaiguda,Medchal.Malkajgiri District.

Between:

Jonna Srinivas Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, Age;.!4. yea.rs, Occ: Pvt' Employ-ee' nyi'.'- f.rl".s7s3, dirnet tr,teoow Roao- Knidtrtdale, Nc' usA-27545 h;r"r;;iUb;his-cFn i.,oroeiJ.Buchi Reddv, -s/o 't'Nasi Reddv' Age: 71 ;;;;- o;; -ft.eio'.empovee, nvo. H.Nos-51/5, Dwarakanasar colonv -Boduppat, HYderabad.

KumbamTirumalReddy,s/oKumbam-LingaReddy,.Age:.53^years'Occ: Hil#;;, nvJ. ir"o"ni6bll;, Eduluru, Kattansur (M), Nalsonda District'

...Petitioner/Petitioner

AND

1. J. Sudha, D/o Y.Ram Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: Employee' Ryo' 1-1- - . ' \ia'iin,\ipi., ECIL G.R.R;)ddi rl"g,'', R ri oist Predenilv residing at1401' czrlii'?ti,iib"* cirau Api.ros, 'lrilonisville Nc, 27560, usA'

2. Kumbam Tirumal Reddy, S/o Kumbam Unga Redd.y'. Age: 53 y.ears'.Occ: - iil;i;;;;, R6. eanoenSpatle, Eduluru, Kattangur (M)' Nalgonda District

3. K.Venkat Papi Reddy, S/o K.Linga Reddy' Age: 67 years' Occ: Advocate' Rl/o' " ijiliti;:ii,H"aino'i, chanJra"puri col<inv,L'e ruasar, Ransa Reddv District.

...ResPondents

lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner and GPA Holder to represent this CRP.No of 2023 on behalf of the petitioner.

lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.119812022 on the file of the ll Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda pending the disposal of the C.R.P.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. VENUGOPAL JULAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent l{o.2: Sri. V.M. KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VTNOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3l89 of 2023 ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2023 in I.A. No.555 of 2023 in O.S. No.1198 of 2022 (Old O.S. No.l36l of 2016) by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Kushaiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri District, as being illegal and contrary to settled principles of law.

2.

Heard Sri. Venugopal Julakanti, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.M.Krishna Reddy, leamed counsel for 2nd respondent, and perused the record 3.

The petitioner No. I herein is the ptaintiff in the suit filed for partition, separate possession and consequential injunction. The respondent No.l herein who is the wife of the petitioner is the defendant No.l in the said suit.

4.

The suit was originally instituted in the year 2016 and the respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein had filed their written statements in 2019. While the suit stands posted for plaintiffs evidence, the petitioner"[erein had preferred an application under Order VI Rule

l7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred ro as 'the Code') proposing to add the following paragraph in the body of the plaint:

"Para No.l0. It is submined that after 2. l2.l 5 when the defendant no. I lelt rhe company of the plaintifT, the plaintiff requested her to partition the suit scheduled property oralty but she refused. After that without informing the plaintiff the defendant no.l sold the property by appointing delendant no.3 as her GPA holder and executed a sale deed in lavour ol defendant no.2. Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued a lefter through his anorney on 4_g_ l6 ro partition the suit schedule property but the defendant no. I bluntly refused.,, Along with the above paragraph the following paragraph rs proposed to be added as 'Cause of Action' in the plaint: "Cause of Action: The cause of action arose on 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant no.l planned to purchase the property and translerred the amount in the name Mr.

Naveen Reddy who is the brother of the plaintiff. The land lords executed agreement of sale in favour of Mr. Naveen Reddy. After execution of agreement of sale, the plaintiff and defendant no.l sent $ 39,g91 frorn 27_3-12 to 24-4-12 and executed sale deed in favour of defendanr no.l by N. Ganganmma, P. Sunitha, Anitha Elizebeth vide document no. 1274/2013 dt. 13_ l3-13. After that on 2-12-15 when the defendant no_l left the company of the plaintiff and on 4-8-16 when the plaintiff issued a lefter flor distribution of properties for which the defendant no.l refused. When prior to issue of letter dt. 4-8-14 when the defendant no. I executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.2 on 3-2-16 by appointing defendant no. 3 as her GpA and when the defendant no.

3 presented the document before SRO, Uppal and they registered the document vide no. 5060/2016 dt.3-2-16.,, The respondent No.2 herein filed his counter opposing the proposed amendments.

5.

The Court below after hearing both sides, while dismissing the said interlocutory application had observed that the only reason given by the petitioner herein for not including the cause of action in the original plaint was due to oversight, and that the same was insufficient to allow an amendment after the commencement of trial. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred. 6.

It is contended by the petitioner that, the contents of the proposed amendments are already forming part of the pleadings as can be seen from the plaint averments and that failure to include 'cause of action' was due to oversight. It is further contended that if the petitioner is not allowed to carry out the proposed amendments he would be put to ineparable loss. 7.

I have taken note of the contentions urged 8.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code stipulates that an application for amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of deciding the real disputes between the parties. However, the same is subject to the proviso to Rule 17 which casts an obligation on the applicant to show that the application could

not have been preferred before the commencement ol trial. despite exercising due diligence'

pertinent to refer to the decision tn g.

At this stage, it is Developers Vs. NaraYanaswamY and Revaieetu Builders and Sons and Ors1, wherein the Supreme Court had postulated the important factors to consider while dealing with an apptication for amendment as under:

"FACTORS TOBET AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DEALING WITH LICATIONSFORAMENDMENTS:

APP

67. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases' some basic ir*",rt", emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allorving or rejecting the application for amendment'

(l) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case?

(2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide?

(3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionalty or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and

(6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application' 68.Thesearesomeoftheimportantfactorswhichmaybekeptinmindwhile dealing with application ftted under Order VI Rule l T These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

'(zoog)rosccaa I

70. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or d ishonest amendments."

10. At the outset it is to be seen that by the proposed amendment the petitioner herein is only seeking to add the cause of action t t paragraph which would clearly state the date from which the petitioner's right to sue had accrued. Further, the contents of the I said paragraphs have specifically been pleaded in para 5 of the plaint. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no new case is being introduced by the petitioner.

I 1. However, considering that the petitioner herein had stated 'oversight' as the reason for cause of delay and further considering thatthe suit is at the stage of plaintiff evidence, this Court is of the view the prejudice caused to the respondents herein by virtue of allowing the present amendment can be compensated with costs. 12.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition partly allowed. The order dated 14.09.2023 in I.A. No.555 of 2023 in O.S. No. I 198 of 2022 (Old O.S. No.1361 of 2016) by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Kushaiguda, Medchal Malkajgiri District is set - aside

subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the respondents herein.

13.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any sha[ stand closed SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// v, SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional senior civil Judge at Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri District z. One CC to SRl. VENUGOPAL JULAKANTI Advocate IOPUCI

3. One CC to SRl. V.M. KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies $<, NS PSR

HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023

ORDER

HE ST4 k CRP.No.3189 of 2023 o O 0 B Fi! 2024 * <?rr. -.

,ta'* ALLOWING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION.

L