Telangana High Court
Mr. Mohd Afzal vs Smt Mohiuddin Bee on 5 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2157 OF 2024
ORDER:
This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 14.06.2024 in I.A.No.224 of 2022 in O.S.No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, trial Court), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC was allowed.
2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 3, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.3 in the said suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the said suit.
3. The background facts are that the plaintiff filed the said suit against the defendants for declaration, recovery of possession and perpetual injunction. The defendants entered appearance in the suit proceedings. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.224 of 2022 to amend some of the paras of the plaint. On contest, the trial Court, vide impugned order, 2 allowed the said application. Aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed the present revision petition.
4. Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3, at the outset fairly submits that no doubt the amendment application was filed at pre-trial stage which could not have been allowed because the plaintiff is seeking annulment/setting aside of sale deed of the year 1984. Thus, question of limitation, change of cause of action and change in the nature of suit arose, but the same were not considered by the trial Court. By placing reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Basavaraj v. Indira 1, it is submitted that change of cause of action is a relevant factor which should have been considered by the trial Court.
5. Sounding a contra note, Sri M.A. Basith, learned counsel for the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3, supported the impugned order and referred a judgment of the Supreme Court Pankaja v. Yellappa (D) By L.Rs. 2 to bolster the submission that ground of delay can be decided at appropriate stage after allowing the amendment. 1 2024 INSC 151 2 AIR 2004 SC 4102 3
6. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed.
7. Admittedly, the application for amendment was filed before commencement of trial. As per proviso to Order VI Rule 7 of CPC, a pre-trial amendment needs to be dealt with leniently (see Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu 3). Whereas, the application preferred after commencement of trial must show 'due diligence'. The judgment of Supreme Court in Basavaraj (supra) deals with an amendment application which was filed after commencement of trial which is evident from para 8 of the judgment. Thus, the parameter was different for pre-trial stage and post trial stage.
8. The Supreme Court in Pankaja (supra) opined that the aspect of delay can be decided at appropriate stage. Interestingly, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any specific objection from his counter relating to bar of limitation.
9. The amendment application can be allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation also. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sushil Kumar Kanungo v. M.P. Rajya Sahkari 3 2012 (11) SCC 341 4 Bank Maryadit 4 considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in this aspect and held as under:
"10. On the basis of the same, if the purpose of Orders 6 Rule 17 is seen, then the dominant purpose of the same is to minimise the litigation so that all relevant facts could be decided finally on merits in the sarnie suit without permitting for further litigation. The dominant purpose for amendment to minimise the litigation has been considered by the Apex Court in Ragu Thilak D. John v. S Rayappan, (2001) 2 SCC 472 wherein the Apex Court has considered all the earlier judgments relating to amendment and ultimately came to a conclusion that the purpose and object of filing the application for amendment is also to minimise the litigation. The relevant para 5 from the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Ragu Trials case (supra) is reproduced as under:--
"After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan, L.J., Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Company, Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram and various other authorities, this Court in B.K. Narayan Piilai v. Parameswaran Pillai held : (SCC p. 715, para 3);
"3. The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.G. is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should hot adopt a hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation."
10. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. Interference can be made if order 4 2008 SCC OnLine MP 5 impugned is patently illegal or suffers from palpable procedural impropriety. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference {See Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil 5}.
11. In the instant case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has taken a plausible view. In absence of any ingredient on which interference can be made, interference is declined.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 14.06.2024 in I.A.No.224 of 2022 in O.S.No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ SUJOY PAUL, J Date: 05.09.2024 TJMR 5 (2010) 8 SCC 329