Kamisetty Bhavani vs Patthi Lalitha Kumari,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1767 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1767 AP
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kamisetty Bhavani vs Patthi Lalitha Kumari, on 31 March, 2023

Bench: K Manmadha Rao

                                  1


        THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                         C.R.P.No.530 of 2020

ORDER:

This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, is preferred against the order, dated 17.09.2019, in

I.A.No.625 of 2019 in O.S.No.205 of 2014 on the file of the Court

of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed under Order VIII,

Rule 9, read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking relief to grant leave

to the petitioner/ 1st defendant to file additional written statement.

2. Heard Ms. P.Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner/ 1st

defendant would contend that certain material facts were omitted

during the course of filing written statement in view of change of

the counsel before the trial court and her new counsel did not

mention the said facts in the written statement. Further,

contended that unless the petition is allowed, the petitioner will

suffer great hardship.

4. The respondents 1 to 7/ plaintiffs filed counter before the

trial court by denying all material allegations and mainly

contended that change of counsel is not a ground to file additional

written statement unless there is a reasonable cause. Further trial

in the suit also commenced and after closure of evidence on the

side of plaintiffs, the petitioner filed her Chief Affidavit in the

month of March-2019 and she was cross examined in part and for

continuation, the suit was posted to 11.07.2019. At that stage, the

petitioner filed the application seeking relief to permit her to file

additional written statement.

5. The learned trial court after close scrutiny of the material

on record, holding that the suit property relates to Sy.No.83/7 as

per the case of the plaintiffs, that the additional written statements

as well as the documents refer that Uppuluri Chinnayya

purchased an extent of Ac. 0.95 cents in three survey numbers

viz., Sy.Nos. 79/3, 81/4 and 81/6 and mentioning of Sy.No. 79/3

in the sale deed was purely a clerical error, but the plaintiffs,

taking advantage of wrong mentioning of survey numbers in the

said sale deed has raised dispute against the defendants and also

other defendants that there is no controversy between the parties

about the old Sy.No.81/2 and RS No.83/7, but the petitioner

raised a new plea alleging that instead of Sy.No.83/7, 79/3 was

mentioned in the sale deed of the year 1970, but as per Section 90

of the Indian Evidence Act, the contents in more than 30 years old

documents are presumed to be true; that as against the same, if

the version of the petitioner is taken into consideration, the

registered documents and its legal position is one of the point for

consideration before the trial court and that if the new plea raised

by the petitioner in her additional written statement is taken into

consideration, it will entirely change her earlier pleadings in her

written statement and also her evidence affidavit. Therefore the

trial court dismissed the application. Assailing the same, the C.R.P

came to be filed.

6. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner placed

on record the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh

in "Gavi Matt Samsthanam Vs. Danda Narayana Swamy and

Others"1 wherein it was held as follows:

"4. .....Further Order 6, Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. As the plaintiff merely wanted to explain in what capacity the suit is instituted and how the Manager of the mutt is competent to institute the suit on behalf of the mutt in answer to the objection raised by the raised by the defendants in the written statement, the lower court ought not to have refused leave to the plaintiff to file a rejoinder/ additional written statement as the same does not, in any way, cause prejudice to the defendants. The lower court clearly acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing such permission to the plaintiff...."

Further relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in the

case of "Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram Vs. Gnanasoundari'2

wherein it was held as follows:

1999(6) ALT 800 : 1999(3) APLJ 13

AIR 2004 Madras 518

"9. In this context, one should remember, Order VIII, Rule 9 which gives ample power to the Court, to grant leave, for filing additional written statement, from any of the parties to the suit and it does not restrict prescribing, what is the defence that has to be taken or something like that. It says,

"No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same".

7. To rebut the same, learned counsel for the respondents

placed on record the decision of the composite High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in "Shaik Asha and Another, being minors

rep., by Court guardian Vs. Shaik Moulaali and Others"3

wherein it was held as follows:

"8. Order 8 Rule 9 of the C.P.C reads as hereunder: "No pleading subsequent to the written statementof a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off (or counter-claim) shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same."

9. In M/s S.K.D.Laboratories, A. Proprietor concern rep., by Hari Nagabhushanam Vs. Bank of India, Vijayawada-1 the learned Judge of this Court while dealing with Order 8, Rule 9 read with Order 6 Rule 7 C.P.C held "that a combined reading of Order VIII, Rule 9 and Order VI, Rule 7 C.P.C makes it clear that additional pleadings which are inconsistent with the previous pleadings, cannot be permitted by the court. In view of the

2005(5) ALT 15 (S.B)

mandatory language used in Order VI, Rule 7 prohibiting departure in pleadings, the additional written statement which contains pleas inconsistent with grounds in the written statement, cannot be permitted to go on record under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C."

8. This Court upon perusal of the entire material on record,

the trial court at length discussed the catena of decisions of this

Court and other High Courts and opined that additional written

statement cannot taken into consideration as it will entirely

change her earlier pleadings in her written statement as well as in

her evidence affidavit and dismissed the application.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in

view of change of her counsel, the material facts are not brought to

the notice of the trial court and that she filed additional written

statement by eliciting true facts. However, in view of the

contention raised by the petitioner and relied on the decisions

cited supra submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,