Smt.Gandu Anjamma v. Sappa Jagan
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
[ 3378 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TFI]RTEENTH DAY OF DECEfi'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR i PRESENT i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY l CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION No: 3740 ot 2O24 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia assailing the order dated 24-09-2024 passed in l.A.No.8 of 2021 in o.s.No.Bl4 of 2014 on the file of the court of the x Additional District sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L. B. NagarBetween:
1. Smt.Gandu Anjamma, (Died Per LRs)
2. Gandu Sudhakar S/o Late Gandu Chennaiah, Age:70 years, Occ: Business, Native of Jukal Village, Shamshabad Mandal. Raiqa Reddv District. presenflv R/o F-lat No,1,2no Floor, Meghana Paradise, tstra-q Cotony. Near AOC Gatd, West Marredpally, Secunderabad.
:
:
:i t t !t ...Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND Sappa Jagan, S/o. late Ramaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Udityal Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District Qappa Subhash, S/o. late Ramaiah, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Udityal Village, Balanagar Mandai, Mahabubna!ar District. !
l Sml- Devarashefty_Shanthamma, Wo_ late D.Ravinder, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Akula Mailaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, R.R.District. i l i Devarashetty Srinath, S/o. late D.Ravinder, Aged about Major, Occ. private Service, R/o- Akula Mailaram Village, Kanduklr Mandal, R.il.District. :
l :
Smt. Devarashetty Suvarnalatha, D/o. late D.Ravinder, Aged about Major, Occ: R/o. Akula Mailaram MIIage, Kandukur Mandal, R.R;District. Bowramma, Wo. Parvathalu, Aged Major, Occ: Housewife, R/o, Akula Mailaram Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, A. Laxmamma, D/o. Parvathalu, Aged Malor, Occ: Aqriculture. R/o. Akula lvlailaram Village, Kandukur MandSl, Ran{a Reddy Dlskict
Sri.Manoj Khandelwal, S/o. Late V.N. Khandetwal, Aged about 65years, Occ: Business, Fl/o H.No.1-1-380/8, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad. SmtA. Praveen, D/o. A. Channa Reddy, Aged about 54 years. Occ: Business, RJo B-34, F APHB Colony, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.
...Respondents/Defendants
10. Gandu Karunakar, S/o. late Gandu Chennaiah, Business, Native of Jukal Village, Shamshabad District.
Aged about 50 years, Occ:
Mandal, Ranga Reddy Presently residing at Abroad.
(hence not necessary party)
...Petitioner/Respondent
1A NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petation, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.814 ot 2014 on the file of the Hon,ble i Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar till the disposal of Civil Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. A. Keshava Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No.6 & 8: Mr. G. Rama Chander Rao The Court made the following: ORDER
/ ,tt'
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY Ciwil Revision Petition No.374O of 2024
ORDER
Heard Mr.A.Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Rama Chander Rao, learned counsel appcaring lor the respondent No.6 & 8. Perused the material avarlable on record 2.
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed b1' the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailirrg thc order dated 24.09.2024 passed in l.A.No.8 ol 202l irr O S No 8l.+ ol- 20 i4 by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge. Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short 'thc trial <:rlr-trt') 3.
Rcspondent Nos.6 and B are the contes[ing respondcnt 4.
Vidt' the .said impugned order, the trial coul-'t hars dismisscd a petrtion liled by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order VI Rr-rle l7 retrd u.rth Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 5.
The su it s'as initially filed way back in the year 20 I l bt !
the petitioncr/ plaintifl seeking for partition in the suit schedult-- prope rtv anrl also lor separate possession. Though the suiI r'r as fili'ci rn Lhc vr':rr 20 l'1 and the conLesting respondents h:rr.e lilccl
a detailerl written statement immediately i_hereafter itself. More than seven years later, the petitioner has f ecr the instant petition i e. I.A.No.g ol 2O2l seeking for antendment in addition to the ple:adings that he intends to claim. The plaintiff had aiso sought for substantial amendment in the relief clause. The substantive amendment in the relief clause is rn the nature of declaring the petitioner to be the title holder of the said property and also being entitled for one half share in the suit schedule property 6.
The written starement having being file.d at a much belated stage that too after the conresting respondents having filed their written statement $ hr_-n the matter is taken up by the tria_l court it rejected the same.n rhc grouncl that rhe nature of the suit itself wiil g;et change br virruc ol the amendment th.at has been sought for and has relcctecl the same. It is this orcier which is under challenge rn the prcscnt cir il revision petition. 7.
Though the learned counsel flor the petitloner submits that there was,3ertain materiai facts r.r,hich lvere not available with the plaintifls ar the rimc ol the liling of the suit and they have received alt these informarron at a much belated stage and
therefore they wanted to amend the plaint so as to avoid further future complicatrons and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation. E.
Upon the hearing of the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the plaint, what is clearly reflected is that l the petitioner at the first instance itself had filed a suit for partition and for separate possession in the suit schedule :
!
property, [he petitroner had paid the requisite court fees for a i suit for partitron. The surt was filed in the year 2014. The present impugned order is one which was passed on I.A.No.8 of 2O2l . The sarid I.A. ivas a petition under Order VI Rule 17, the said petition lor amendment has been filed after more than seven years of the filrng of the suit. The plain reading of the amendment that the petitioner/ plaintiff intends to seek reflects \t that the \:en' natlrrc of the suit itself is getting changed in as much as the surit lor partition would in the event of the amendment bcing allou,ed, n,ould convert the suit into the suit for declaration ol title and one shall be in the suit schedulc propert\'- Thc pctitioner also has pleaded for permission to pav the reqursrte addrtional court fees required upon the conversion of the partrtion suit irlto a declarative suit.
g.
These very facts which bf itseli rn'ould reveal that the nature of amendment sought is firstlv not permissible under the provisions of Order VI Rule lT Moreover' it is by now a settled i proposition of 1au' that by virtue of the amendment o1'the plaint' thenatureofthesuitorthenatureo[reliefsoughtforshould not in any manner get changed or adverseh' effected' which it infact by the amendment sought for is getting effectecl' 10, For tkre reasons' this Court does not find any merits in the instant civil revision petition and the same dtrserves to be and is accordingl) rejected.
ConsequentlY, miscellancous petltionr; pendlng' if any' sha-ll stand closed.
ASSI T Sd/- K. AMMAJI NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, S CTION OFFICER '1. The X Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.
2. One CC to Mr. A. Keshava Reddy, Advocate [oPUCl
3. One CC to Mr. G. Rama Chander Rao, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies kam/gh {,A
HIGH COURT DATED:1311212024 Yl S (./
ORDER
c, ) 2.
( t ,J CRP.No.3740 of 2024 ,t t e REJECTING OF THE GIVIL REVISION PETITION (p- -------+-\ ^ ('
\)-\"-ll) bcr1n,