HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3134 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Pratusha Bopanna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as well as Sri P.Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Challenge in this Civil Revision is the order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.414 of 2022 in O.S.No.68 of 2015, dated 22.11.2022.
3. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff to the suit, moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint. The trial Court through the impugned order negatived the relief sought for and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Making her submission, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the revision petitioner did not seek for altering or changing the nature of the suit, but she sought for a relief to declare the judgment and the final decree passed in a suit for partition as null and void. But, the 2 Dr CSL, J CRP.No.3134 of 2022 trial Court without looking at the ground for which such a relief was sought for, dismissed the application. Learned counsel submits that the pleadings can be amended at any stage of the suit and indeed, as the learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared before the trial Court was not diligent, he did not seek for the required relief at the very inception of the suit and therefore, just opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner for making the necessary amendment for seeking the appropriate relief.
5. Stating that the ground of delay cannot be taken into consideration when the real controversy is sought to be resolved through the proposed amendment, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of the the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh1. Also, making a submission that when no new pleadings are introduced or where the cause of action or the nature of the suit is not sought to be changed, the proposed amendment has to be allowed, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case between 1 (2009) 10 SCC 626 3 Dr CSL, J CRP.No.3134 of 2022 Kondeti Madhu Kumar Vs. Rayapati Pitchiah and Others2.
6. Vehemently opposing the relief sought for and the genuineness in the submissions thus made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 states that the suit is of the year 2015 and indeed, the petitioner earlier moved an application vide I.A.No.1380 of 2018 for amendment of plaint and the said application was allowed. But, even at that time, the relief sought through I.A.No.414 of 2022 was not sought for. Learned counsel also submits that the judgment rendered in O.S.No.110 of 2018, which is a suit for partition, attained finality and it is not the case of the petitioner that she is unaware of the said fact. Learned counsel also states that the party to the suit in O.S.No.110 of 2018 is none other than the husband of the petitioner and when an application was filed for passing of final decree, the husband of the petitioner endorsed and reported no objection for passing of final decree. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had got an opportunity to seek the proposed relief at the time 2 MANU/AP/1608/2022 4 Dr CSL, J CRP.No.3134 of 2022 of filing of the suit itself, she did not do so and she did not take any steps even thereafter for a considerable time and further, though she moved an application for amendment of plaint earlier vide I.A.No.1380 of 2018, such a relief was not sought for and when the suit has come up for arguments, she leisurely moved an application for getting separate relief and hence, such an amendment cannot be allowed to be made.
7. In this context, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case between Savanam Polamma and another Vs. Sattupalli Purnachandra Rao and others3 .
8. A perusal of record discloses that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff to the suit, in the plaint itself made a mention about the decree obtained in O.S.No.110 of 2008, more particularly at para 8. Her version, however, is that it was obtained behind her back.
9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, by order in I.A.No.2907 of 2013 in 3 2019 (5) ALD 189 (AP) 5 Dr CSL, J CRP.No.3134 of 2022 O.S.No.110 of 2018, which is an application filed for passing of final decree, it is clear that the respondent therein, who is none other than the husband of the petitioner, in his counter endorsed no objection for allotment of eastern portion of the suit land towards the half share of the petitioners therein. Further, why the petitioner has not sought for the required and appropriate relief at the very inception of the suit is not mentioned anywhere. That apart, though the petitioner sought for amendment of plaint in the year 2018, vide I.A.No.1380 of 2018 such a relief was not sought for. What made her to seek the proposed relief after a lapse of considerable period, i.e., after seven years from the date of institution of suit, is not mentioned anywhere. The reasons assigned are neither convincing nor appears genuine. Though, there is no bar for seeking appropriate amendment of the pleadings at any time during the suit proceedings, that does not mean that the parties can get the pleadings amended at any time of the suit proceedings as per their whims and fancies or convenience. This Court does not find any grounds for interfering with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court.
6
Dr CSL, J CRP.No.3134 of 2022
10. Having considered all the factual aspects, the learned judge of the trial Court had come to a right conclusion that the relief sought for cannot be granted. The observation made by the learned judge of the trial Court in the impugned order that the petitioner is not diligent cannot be interfered with.
11. Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 25.01.2023 dr