V.Jagantha Reddy v. V.Venkataswamy Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.(PD)No.3165 of 2019 and CMP.No.20633 of 2019 1.V.Jaganatha Reddy 2.V.Nagaraja Reddy 3.V.Shyla ... Petitioners vs.
1.V.Venkataswamy Reddy 2.K.C.Prakash 3.S.M.Chandraiah 4.C.Mohanraj 5.Munikrishnappa 6.G.Loknath 7.T.Gobal 8.P.M.Sivaprasad 9.M/s.SPA Builders Pvt., Ltd., No.324, Raheja Arcade, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 095, Karnataka State, Rep. by its Commercial Manager, Suresh Kumar Sharma, Son of Late. Prabhati Lal Sharma, No.176/6, Kalyana Mantapa Road, Janata Colony, Jakkasandra, Bangalore.
10.Muniamma 11.Pramila 12.Krishna Reddy 13.Chandra Reddy 14.Gowramma 1/5
15.K.C.Bhagyamma 16.K.C.Anasuya 17.Thimmaraya Reddy 18.Parvathamma 19.Ramakrishna Reddy 20.Neelamma ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal Order passed in I.A.No.01 of 2019 in O.S.No.34 of 2008 dated 03.08.2019 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Siddeswaran For Respondents: Mr.V.Nicholas (for R2 & R14) No Appearance (for R1, R3 to R13 & R15 to R20)
O R D E R
I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed in O.S.No.34 of 2008. O.S.No.34 of 2008 is a suit for partition. In the said suit, an application was filed to include certain properties under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. This was in I.A.No.263 of 2017. The application was allowed. Against which, a civil revision petition was preferred to this Court in CRP(PD)No.563 of 2018. This Court passed the following order:
'....
6.Considering the aforesaid submissions made by 2/5
the learned counsel for both sides and on a perusal of records, it is seen that the respondents filed an application in I.A.No.263 of 2017 to implead the proposed parties and properties in the said suit. To include the proposed properties is concerned, this Court has no hesitation to allow the Civil Revision Petition and inclined to pass the following order:
"(i)In respect of impleading proposed parties, the order dated 12.01.2018 passed in I.A.No.263 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hosur is confirmed, in respect of including the proposed properties, the order dated 12.01.2018 passed in I.A.No.263 of 2017 is set aside.
(ii)Liberty is granted to the respondents to file an application before the Court below, if it is permissible under law, to include the proposed properties".'
2.After the order was passed, I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed for amendment of the plaint to include properties. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application on two grounds, namely, on the ground of pendency of O.S.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur and also on the fact that Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC does not permit impleading of proposed properties. To my knowledge, there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to implead proposed properties. 3.A property is included in a suit by moving an appropriate application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and that is what has been done 3/5
in the present case. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the suit has already been filed in O.S.No.13 of 2008, there is no necessity to amend the suit in O.S.No.34 of 2008 does not appeal to me. In a suit for partition, if properties are not included, it may result in dismissal of the suit itself. Further, in the light of the liberty granted by this Court to file an application to amend the plaint to include the properties, the learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the application. 4.In the light of the above, this civil revision petition is allowed. The order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 is allowed. The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the plaint. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.08.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vs To The Additional District Judge at Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
4/5
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
vs C.R.P.(PD)No.3165 of 2019 and CMP.No.20633 of 2019 18.08.2023 5/5