M/S. Varp Power Private Limited v. Veldanada Srinivas

[ 320e ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SANTHOSH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:7722 OF 2018 Petition Under Arlicle 227 Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 2611012018 in 1.A.No.103 ol 2018 in O.S.No. 52 oI 2014 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla.

Between:

M/s. VARP Power Private Limited, Hyderabad-Rep by its DirectorP.Vinay Kumar, S/o. P.Shivakumar, age 46 years, Rl/o. H.No. 1-4-8791814, Plol No. 4, Mega City, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.

...PETlTlON ER/petitioner/Defendant No. 1 AND

1. Veldanada Srinivas, S/o. Late Venkat Kishan Rao, Age 45 years, Occ- Pvt., Employee,

2. Ram Kishan Rao, S/o. Late Narsing Rao, Age 36 years, Occ- agriculture,

3. Md. Jahangeer, S/o. Md. Pasha, age 46 years, Occ- agriculture,

4. G.Venkatayya, S/o. G.Murthayya, age 59 years, Occ- Pvt., Employee' (R 1 to 4 Fl/o. Bhoothpur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District) ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

5. National High Way Authority of lndia, Plot No.25, Road No.2, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

6. The Supt. Engineer (Operation Circle), TSSPDCL, Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar town proper.

7. L&T Western Andra toll ways Ltd, Shakhapur, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendant Nos. 2-4

(Respondents 5 to 7 are not necessary parties in this Petition)

CRPMP/IA NO: 1 OF; r0 18 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in :he ,lircumstances stated in the affidav] . f iled herein the High Court may be FL--ased to stay all further proceedir-rgs; it OS No.52 of 2014 on the file of the .iunic,r Civil Judge, Jadcherla.

Counsel for the Appt llant: SRl. R. HARISH KUMAR, ADVOC,\TE Counsel for the Resl ondents: SRI B. RACHNA, ADVOCATE The Court made the I ollowing: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE A.SANTHOSH REDDY CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.7722 0F 20La ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is frled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the Order dated,26.10.2018 passed in I.A.No. 1O3 of 2018 in O.S.No.52 of 2Ol4 by learned Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla, whereunder the petitioner/ defendant No. t has filed an application under Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short'C.P.C.'), was dismissed.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Respondent Nos.l to 4 herein frled the suit in O.S.No.S2 of 2Ol4 for declaration and mandatory injunction against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.S to 7 f defendant Nos.2 to 4. While so, the petitioner filed a memo adopting the written statement frled by defendant No.3. When the subject

suit wirs c( nring up for lraming of issues, .tltt: pt:titioner herein filel an application vide I.A.No.1(),1 of 2018 seeking pe:r:eission of the Court below to 1ll,: additional written sti rt,3ment by eschewing the eal-l ()r- adoption memo Re, ;pondent Nos.1 to 4 have resist:<.1 the same by way c f counter. After considering th,: ;:naterial availabie cn record, the Court below has dL:;missed the said appli:ation. Being aggrievecl by tht: s;aict Order, this Civit Ilevision Petition is preferred.

4.

L,earr red counsel for the petitioner hzLr; surbmitted that the Cortrt below committed an error i:. dis;missing the appli:ation filed seeking permissiorr frrr filing additi,rnal written statement, escheuing ..1:.e adoption memo through which adopted the u,ritterr statement hled by 1t:fendalt No.3. Learned couLns;el for the petitiont:r hLas placed reliance on the .Ir-l dgnrents 1n between ALOOR SUBRAIIMAIWAM Lt. SIITHRAM

PRABHAI{AR AND OTIIERST ar,d VEERAIVIIvIAL AND O?IIERS a. P.SELVP.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 4 has supported the Order of the Court below and submits that the petitioner was given suflicient opportunity for filing additional written statement. When the suit was posted for framing issues, severa-l adjournments were granted but the petitioner belated filed the subject application as such it was rightly dismissed by the Court below.

6.

Heard ttre submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

7. Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC deals with subsequent pleadings. It has imposed bar on the parties filing pleadings subsequent to the liling of the written statement other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim, except by the leave of the Court. This provision per se does not stipulate any limitations on ' zo tz lzy ccc sso ' Mevuirt v t 55 U2o t o

the pow,:r of the Court to allow the pal l ies to lile subseclu()n t pleadings. I Iowever, the Corrrts have interpretec 1.his provision by r.eacii:.;,g certa,in limitations ir-rto the same, obviously tc, enslrre Ihat the scope of t .re, proceedings is not undrrly ,3. jarljed and the suit prt<:eedings are not draggeci c,n in-_he quise of filing sutrs :quent pleadings.

8.

Ctn F errrsal of the entire mater.ial rrvail,tble on record, thr 1>etitioner/defendant No.1 has rrrlopted the written ste tr:ment l-rled by defendant No.Ii :,y filing an adopti,rn rlemo on 11.12.2OI4. Therefore., the subject suit uras l osted for framing of issues. -errtrserluently, on 19,01.11C17, at the request of the petilioner, the Court belru/ gave an opportunity to hi:r fc,r filing additional written statement ancl adjorrmr:rl lhe, matter for six ((r) times but in spite of several ar1.j :,p111116rr1", the aclditi< nal written statement was noL . rle d. Later, he fileC th: subject application seeking pt:rmir;sion to

file additional written statement by eschewing the earlier adoption memo.

9. It appears that the petitioner was negligent, thereby, he failed to file additional written statement even after sufficient opportunity was given. Order VIII, Rule 9 of C.P.C. is admissible with certain limitations and that the time for filing written statement can be enlarged the suit proceedings and the same cannot be dragged for a long period on in the guise of hling I I additional written statement even after filing the \ pleadings of both parties and when the suit is coming up for framing of issues. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 has vehemently argued that the suit is advanced and at this stage, it is not permissible under Civil provisions for filing additiona-l written statement.

10. Keeping in view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly appreciated the fact that the petitioner was not

\ diligent ar sllch he failcd to lile a,jditir>nal written staterrrerrt. in spite of sufilcient opportunir..r u.irs given and filed rhe subject application belated[_r, Therefore, this Civii tr e'yision Petition is liable to tre dir;:rris:;ed. 1 1. Accor dingly, this Civil Revisron F)etiLion is dismissed.

Pend n,g miscellaneous applications. i: alv, shall stand clts:cl. However, there shall br: no :rrd<:r as to costs SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSIS'I'ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// n sEcflokftcER To,

1. The Junior C;iv Judge, Jadcherla.

2. One CC to llF l. HARISH KUMAR RAS|NEN| Advocate [Ot]UCl

3. One CC to SR . U RACHNA Advocate tOpUCl

4. Two CD Oopie ;

ADK 8*<.

HIGH COURT DATED:09,t0212023 -::_:-- r i1.: -- ,',-..:\ L .i [| A;:r 2171 li

ORDER

CRP.No.7722 of 2018 CIVIL REVISII)N PETITION IS DISMISSET] -"--ntLlrl,r.