Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P Naveen Kumar Reddy vs Bandarupalli Chandra Sekhar Reddy on 13 September, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
1
APHC010225362024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1134/2024
Between:
P. Naveen Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
Bandarupalli Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P GANGA RAMI REDDY
The Court made the following Order:
The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.66 of 2019 before the V
Additional District Judge, Tirupati, for grant of permanent injunction in respect
of 8,064 sq. feet of land in Sy.No.114 /3 of Panagal Revenue Village of
Srikakulam Mandal, Chittoor District against the respondents herein. This suit
was transferred to the XII Additional District Judge at Srikalahasthi and
renumbered as O.S.No.71 of 2023.
2
2. The case of the petitioner in the suit was that the suit schedule
property had been purchased by him, from his vendor, under a registered
deed of sale dated 13.05.2015. Subsequently, an error was found in the
boundaries set out in the sale deed and a rectification deed was executed by
the vendor in favour of the petitioner, by way of a rectification deed dated
17.08.2015, registered as document No.4324 of 2015. The petitioner also
traced title from one B. Guruva Reddy by setting out all the subsequent
documents of alienation. The 4th respondent filed a written statement in which
it was admitted that the original owner of the property was Sri B. Guruva
Reddy and Smt. Jayamma, who were the parents of 4th respondent. The
contention of the 4th respondent was that certain properties, including the suit
schedule property, belonging to the family had been settled on her, by way of
two registered gift settlement deeds executed in the year 2008 itself. It is
stated that these settlements were done, apart from a settlement deed
executed in favour of the 3rd defendant for the purpose of protecting the
property against various creditors and the said settlement deeds were sham
and nominal documents which should not be taken into account.
Consequently, the sale of land in favour of the petitioner, on account of these
documents cannot be allowed.
3. The trial Court took up the trial of the matter and the chief
examination and cross examination of the petitioner was completed. At that
stage, the petitioner moved I.A.No.627 of 2023, for amendment of the
schedule to the property on the ground that the boundaries shown in the
3
original deed of sale had been set out in the schedule by inadvertent mistake
and that the corrected boundaries, as per the rectification deed, have to be
included in the schedule.
4. The 4th respondent filed a counter to this application and the said
counter was adopted by the respondents 1 to 3. In this counter, it was stated
that the petitioner had been subjected to cross examination wherein certain
admissions were elicited from the petitioner in regard to the boundaries of the
plaint schedule property and any amendment to the schedule at the present
stage would cause prejudice to the respondents as they would lose the benefit
of such admissions by the petitioner.
5. The trial Court after hearing both sides was pleased to dismiss
the application by an order dated 12.03.2024. The trial Court after noticing
various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court had held that
the amendment of plaint, after commencement of trial, and at the stage of
further evidence of the petitioner is not permissible and the petition is a
belated petition which cannot be accepted.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present
Civil Revision Petition.
7. The trial Court after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and this Court reported in Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly and
others1, M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by Lrs and Ors 2, Ganesh
1
(2008) 7 SCC 85
4
Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad3, Life Insurance Corporation of India vs.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No.5909 of
2022 dated 01.09.2022, P. Durga Reddy and another vs. B. Yadi Reddy, in
Civil Revision Petition No.1811 of 2014 dated 24.12.2014 by the Hon'ble High
Court, Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and another4 and Baladev Singh &
Ors. Etc vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc5 had held that amendments cannot
be allowed once trial commences, on account of the provisions of Order VI
Rule 17 of C.P.C.
8. Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C reads as follows:
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
question 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.
9. This provision was considered in the above judgments wherein it
was held that any application for amendment, after commencement of trial,
should be considered on a very strict and narrow basis and it is only where it
is shown that the party could not have raised the issue, despite due diligence,
and that such amendment is required for determining the real question in
2
AIR 2019 SC 940
3
(2023) SCC Online SC 256
4
(2002) 7 SCC 559
5
(2006) 6 SCC 498
5
controversy between the parties. The said principle is binding on this Court
also.
10. However, the fact remains that, the change in boundaries, by
way of the rectification deed, has been set out in the plaint itself. In such
circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that there was an inadvertent
mistake in recording the boundaries in the sale deed, cannot be rejected.
There is every possibility that the petitioner, instead of recording the
boundaries set out in the rectification deed had set out the boundaries in the
deed of sale by inadvertence.
11. The purpose of pleadings is to set out the case of the party so as
to enable the opposing party to mount a proper defense against such
pleadings. In the present case, the respondents were always aware of the
fact that the original boundaries set out in the deed of sale had been changed
in the deed of rectification.
12. The respondents have also objected to the amendment on the
ground that certain admissions made by the petitioner would be lost on
account of the amendment to the suit schedule.
13. A perusal of the evidence of the petitioner, recorded as P.W.1,
would show that the original deed of sale dated 13.05.2015 and the original
deed of rectification dated 17.08.2015 have been marked as Exs.A4 and A5
respectively. The cross examination of the petitioner, in regard to the
boundaries is as follows:
6
I know the schedule for the suit property as follows:
East: Rajaveedi,
West: Gurava Reddy's property,
South: 20 feet road
North: Property of Padmavathi:
It is true that in the plaint schedule I have referred western
boundary as 20 feet road. Witness adds that as per rectification
sale deed western boundary referred as Gurava Reddy's property.
It is true that the said rectification sale deed obtained prior to filing
of the suit. It is true that in the plaint schedule boundaries are not
confirmed with the rectification sale deed boundaries.
14. The above statement is only in line with the averments in the
plaint. It is not clear as to how amendment of the boundaries would
prejudice the respondents.
15. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed
setting aside the order of the XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasti
dated 12.03.2024 in I.A.No.627 of 2023 with a further direction to the trial
Court to permit the amendment sought in I.A.No.627 of 2023 in
O.S.No.71 of 2023. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
RJS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1134 of 2024
13-09-2024
RJS
