Telangana High Court
D. Ravinder vs Sri. Narsimaha Rao on 4 November, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2790 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.1786 of 2023 in O.S.No.207 of 2018 by the learned Junior Civil Judge at Zaheerabad, Sangareddy District.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner - plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.3-25 guntas agricultural land in Survey No.8/A situated at Singitham Village, Raikode Mandal, Sangareddy District. The respondent - defendant filed written statement. After framing of issues, trial was commenced and the petitioner filed his evidence affidavit as PW.1 on 29.03.2023 and got marked the documents as Exs.A1 to A6. When the suit was coming for cross-examination of PW.1, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1786 of 2023 seeking amendment of the plaint contending that originally he purchased an agricultural land total admeasuring Ac.6-38 guntas in Survey No.8/A through registered sale deed document No.147 of 1991 dated 24.01.1991. Thereafter his name was mutated in the revenue records and obtained pattadar passbook and title deed, etc. After purchase, to meet his personal and family requirements, he sold part of the 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 agricultural land total admeasuring Ac.3-10 guntas i.e.Ac.1-18 guntas through registered sale deed document No.2069 of 2005 dated 18.06.2005 to one Madhukar and admeasuring Ac.1-32 guntas through registered sale deed document No.1912 of 2006 dated 24.03.2006 to one B.Bharathamma and the remaining land admeasuring Ac.3-28 guntas was standing in his name and he obtained pattadar passbook for Ac.3-28 guntas in Survey No.8/A. From out of the Ac.3-28 guntas, he sold out part of the land admeasuring Ac.3-25 guntas by executing registered sale deed document No.6499 of 2007 dated 03.11.2007 in favor of respondent - defendant, but not delivered the physical possession of the said land and also not delivered the link documents because the respondent - defendant had not paid the sale consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. As per his promise, the respondent agreed to pay the sale consideration within two (02) months. But as he failed to pay the same, the land was not mutated in the name of the respondent - defendant in the revenue records and the petitioner - plaintiff was cultivating the same by raising seasonal crops and his name was continuously reflecting in the revenue records. The petitioner - plaintiff was regularly receiving the Rythu Bandhu scheme benefits from the Government. In view of the said facts, his earlier counsel advised him at the time of filing the suit that there was no necessity to seek any relief seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed, as the alleged registered sale deed would become infructuous by operation of law. As such, the petitioner - 3
Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 plaintiff filed the suit only seeking relief of perpetual injunction without seeking the relief to declare the said registered sale deed as null and void and not binding on the petitioner - plaintiff.
2.1. It was further averred that during the pendency of the above suit, in the month of February, 2023, the petitioner came to know that the respondent gained over the revenue authorities and got mutated his name in the revenue records without issuance of notice to the petitioner - plaintiff and also got deleted his name from the records without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the said arbitrary and illegal action of the revenue authorities, the petitioner - plaintiff filed W.P.No.10733 of 2023 before the High Court for the State of Telangana and the same was pending adjudication. After filing the chief affidavit of PW.1 on 29.03.2023, the earlier counsel on record for the petitioner - plaintiff gave NOC vakalat. As such, the petitioner - plaintiff was compelled to engage another advocate on 02.06.2023 and on the advice of the counsel, the petitioner - plaintiff filed the petition to declare the sale deed bearing document No.6499 of 2007 dated 03.11.2007 as null and void and not binding on him.
3. The respondent - defendant filed counter contending that the suit was filed by the petitioner - plaintiff against him in the year 2018 and for the last five (05) years, he had not filed the above application. But when the matter was 4 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 coming for cross-examination of PW.1, the petition was filed only to drag the matter. The petitioner - plaintiff deliberately suppressed the material facts and filed the suit without stating about executing the registered sale deed document No.6499 of 2007 dated 03.11.2007 in favor of the defendant in respect of the petition schedule property and delivery of possession to the defendant and obtained ad interim injunction. After receiving the summons / notice from the Court, the defendant filed his counter and written statement. On considering the arguments, the trial court dismissed the I.A. on 05.03.2019. Against the said dismissal, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad. The same was also dismissed on 17.03.2022 confirming the order of the trial court. Basing on the registered sale deed document in the name of the defendant, the revenue authorities mutated the name of the defendant in the revenue records and issued pattadar passbook in his favor. The petitioner had created a new story to amend the suit with false claim to grab the valuable property pertaining to the defendant. The sale deed which was executed by the petitioner was binding on him and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. On hearing both the learned counsel, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad dismissed the petition.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - plaintiff preferred this CRP. 5
Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024
6. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal of I.A. was contrary to the well settled principles of law. The trial court erred in not noticing the fact that, as per the entries in the revenue records, the petitioner was in possession of the suit schedule property continuously till date i.e. even after lapse of more than twelve (12) years from the date of execution of registered sale deed. The respondent did not make any efforts to pay either the sale consideration or to recover the possession of the lands. As the petitioner's previous counsel advised him that there was no necessity to seek any relief for cancellation of the registered sale deed, the petitioner filed the said suit only for permanent injunction against the respondent, but as it was necessary to seek a comprehensive relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed, the amendment was warranted for proper adjudication of the suit. The trial court erred in holding that the petitioner's plea was barred by limitation and relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.937 of 2023 dated 26.02.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that all amendments which were necessary for determining the real questions in controversy had to be allowed 6 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others 1.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the application under Order VI Rule 17 itself was not maintainable. As such, the trial court dismissed the said application. Originally, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction and now the petitioner was seeking amendment to declare the sale deed as null and void. The petitioner was converting the injunction suit into declaration suit. Infact, the amendment sought itself was barred by limitation. The application for amendment was filed to declare the registered sale deed No.6499 of 2007 dated 03.11.2007 as null and void. The amendment was barred by limitation. The petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction suppressing the execution of sale deed in favor of respondent alleging that he was in possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner though having knowledge about the execution of registered sale deed in favor of the defendant in the year 2007, filed the suit in the year 2018. There were no circumstances for the petitioner for not filing the application at an earlier stage and prayed to dismiss the CRP with exemplary costs.
9. Perused the record.
1 2024 INSC 726 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024
10. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC pertains to amendment of pleadings. It reads as follows:
"17. Amendment of pleadings:
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
11. As seen from the above provision, the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage when it was necessary to determine the real question of controversy inter se between the parties and if the application for amendment was filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that inspite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Others (cited supra) considered the law relating to the amendment of pleadings and by extracting its earlier judgments, held that: 8
Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 "11.1. The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v.
Bhagwan Das [(2008) 8 SCC 511], it was held as under:
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil & Ors. [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. (Also see:
Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi vs. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166].
11.2. Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17.
Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128], after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:-
(i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the 10 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.
(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if -
(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side;
(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations);
(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit;
(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide.
(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence.
(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are:-
(I) The Court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially 11 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 when the opposite party can be compensated by costs.
(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.
(III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entire new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint."
13. In the light of these guidelines, the merits of the petition need to be considered.
14. The trial court observed that:
"The petitioner filed the suit in the year 2018 against the respondent herein, but nowhere in his pleadings, the petitioner mentioned about the existence of the sale deed document No.6499 of 2007. It was not the case of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the existence of the said sale deed as on the date of filing the present suit. Further, the plea of non-payment of sale consideration amount by the respondent was completely a new plea that had not been found its place in the pleadings. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, the details of the said 12 Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 sale transaction and the existence of the sale deed vide document No.6499 of 2007 was suppressed in his pleadings. Moreover, the petitioner who is claiming threat with the existence of the above said sale deed on the ground that no consideration is being paid to him has not filed any suit for cancellation of above said sale deed since 2007 and no prudent person having executed a registered sale deed in favor of vendee would remain silent till 2023 if the consideration has not been paid under the sale transaction and the said plea of non- payment of sale consideration amount to the petitioner by the respondent for a transaction that took place in the year 2007 is far beyond imagination and even in case if it is assumed to be true, the petitioner's plea is barred by limitation as the sale deed is of the year 2007. Further, it is only in the year 2023 that the petitioner is seeking the relief of mere declaration of the said sale deed as null and void. In the circumstances discussed above, the petitioner has failed to prove that he was prevented under valid cause to raise the present claim before commencement of trial. Further, if the present relief for declaration or cancellation of the above sale deed is granted, it would completely change the nature of the suit. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for and the point is decided against the petitioner."13
Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & another in Civil appeal No.5909 of 2022, stated that amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if the amendments would completely change the nature of the suit, the prayer for amendment is malafide, the amendment does not raise a time barred claim resulting in divesting the other side of a valuable accrued right.
16. All these factors are found in the present case. The suit was initially filed for injunction suppressing the fact of existence of the sale deed document No.6499 of 2007 executed by the petitioner to the respondent - defendant herein; as such the prayer for amendment was malafide. The present amendment also completely changes the nature of the suit from that of injunction to that of a title suit. The amendment also raises a time barred claim, as the relief sought for was barred by limitation as rightly observed by the trial court. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court in dismissing the petition and any merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein to set aside the same.
17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the orders of the trial court dated 12.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.1786 of 2023 in O.S.No.207 of 2018.
14
Dr.GRR, J crp_2790_2024 No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 04th November, 2024.
Nsk.