Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vattikuti Koteswara Rao vs Gorrepati Apireddy And Others on 12 September, 2024
APHC010503772011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3130/2011
Between:
Vattikuti Koteswara Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Gorrepati Apireddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N SRIRAM MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI
2. GHANTA SRIDHAR
3. 0
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3130 of 2011
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the
interlocutory order dated 26.04.2011 in I.A.No.133 of 2011 in
O.S.No.93 of 2006 passed by the XI Additional District Judge (FTC),
Guntur District at Tenali in rejecting the application of the petitioner for
amendment of the plaint.
2. The petitioner No.1 was the plaintiff. Pending revision, the
petitioner No.1 had expired and his daughter was brought on record as
legal representative vide Court order dated 14.03.2018 in
C.R.P.M.P.No.4480 of 2014. Originally, the suit was filed for recovery
of Rs.27,75,593/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respondents.
The respondents filed their written statement denying these claims.
3. While so, I.A.No.133 of 2014 was filed to amend Para 3(a)(i), to
delete a sentence in Para 3(b), to add Para 3(a)(i) and make
amendment in Para 3(b) of the plaint. The respondents filed their
counters opposing the amendments.
4. The trial Court after taking into consideration various Judgments
of this Court passed an elaborate order permitting the amendment of
Para 3(a)(i) and additions in Para 3(b). However, the trial Court held
that the petitioner is not entitled for deletion of certain sentences in
Para 3(b) and inclusion of an additional paragraph in Para 3(ii) of the
proposed amendment. Hence, the present Revision is filed by the
plaintiff to the extent of rejection or denial of deletion of certain
sentences in Para 3(b) and for addition of sub-paragraph in Para 3(b).
5. Heard Sri N.Sri Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Ghanta Sridhar and Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned
counsel for the respondents.
6. The Para 3(b) as originally pleaded in the plaint reads as under:-
"b) While so, the Plaintiff got himself admitted and treated in
Hyderabad for amputation of his left leg above the ankle as a result of acute
diabetic condition, keeping house at Manduru under the care and custody of
the Defendant No.1 by delivering the keys of the house to him, having got
locked the iron safes and other wardrobes and taken away the said keys. It
so happened that the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 being inter-related and
residents of Manduru took undue advantage of the said situation and
committed theft of all the said certificates by breaking open the iron
safe and other wardrobes. It is further learnt by the Plaintiff that the
Defendant Nos.1 to 5 with the connivance of the Postal Authorities encashed
the above said bonds in the pseudo names and in the name of the fictitious
persons and getting up fake transfers indulging in forging the signatures of
all the concerned and misappropriated the said amounts during the period
07.06.2003 to 18.03.2004."
7. The proposed amendment to Para 3(b) reads as under:-
"b) While so, the Plaintiff got himself admitted and treated in
Hyderabad for amputation of his left leg above the ankle as a result of acute
diabetic condition, keeping house at Manduru under the care and custody of
the Defendant No.1 by delivering the keys of the house to him, having got
locked the iron safes and other wardrobes and taken away the said keys.
While the Plaintiff was at Hyderabad undergoing treatment the
Defendant No.2 visited the Plaintiff along with some farmers. The
Defendant No.2 reminded the Plaintiff that some of the deposits have
matured and if necessary they can be encashed or be renewed. The
Defendant No.2 further volunteered that she would go to the village and
get the bonds and the bag containing them and return within 2 or 3
days. For the said purpose she requested the plaintiff to hand over the
keys of the Iron safe and all other keys. The Plaintiff who was totally
bedridden believed the representations of the Defendant No.2 and
delivered the keys. The Defendant No.2 also obtained the signature of
the Plaintiff on the interest forms for the accrued interest. The
Defendant Nos.1 to 5 hatched a plan to deprive the Plaintiff of his
monies. Instead of bringing the bag containing the bonds, the
Defendants took away the bonds as also other monies laying in the
safe. It is further learnt by the Plaintiff that the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 with the
connivance of the Postal Authorities encashed the above said bonds in the
pseudo names and in the name of the fictitious persons and getting up fake
transfers indulging in forging the signatures of all the concerned and
misappropriated the said amounts during the period 07.06.2003 to
18.03.2004.
c) The Plaintiff came to know that the defendants 1 to 5 have no
capacity to purchase any property, they purchased properties under
Registered documents after encashing the bonds, certificates etc., belonging
to plaintiff."
8. The trial Court had rejected the deletion on the ground that they
amount to admissions by the plaintiff and such admissions cannot be
re-siled by the plaintiff under the guise of amendment by introducing a
new case.
9. Having examined the original plaint and the proposed
amendments, this Court is of the opinion that the proposed
amendments are only a change in the narration of facts and the
allegations. The amendments were neither barred by limitation nor do
they change the nature of the suit. The only visible change in the
amendment is that the allegation of theft by the defendants is altered
The alteration appears to be on account of the fact that the allegation
of theft may not be sustainable as the keys of the house were given to
the defendants by the plaintiffs themselves as per the pre and post
amendment plaint. However, the dis-honest intention of the defendants
in encashing the bonds, certificates etc. belonging to the plaintiff remained
constant.
10. For an averment in the plaint to be a conclusive admission, the
same should be against the interest of the plaintiff and to the
advantage of the defendant. It is not the case of the defendants that
they admit to the allegations of theft in the original plaint and that they
are losing out the advantage on account of amendment. In either case,
the defendants deny the allegation.
11. In this case, the trial is yet to start and the pre-trial amendments
should be liberally considered. The change in the narration of the
allegation is for the plaintiff to explain and the defendants are at liberty
to question the plaintiff on this aspect in the trial.
12. Therefore, the order of the trial Court to the extent of which is
impugned in this Civil Revision is set aside and the Civil Revision
Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 12.09.2024
IS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3130 of 2011
Date: 12.09.2024
IS
