Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Majji Lakshmi Prasanna Kumar vs Smt Kovvuri Sobhanadri Kalyani on 20 September, 2024
APHC010192152024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 876/2024
Between:
Majji Lakshmi Prasanna Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Smt Kovvuri Sobhanadri Kalyani ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. P DURGA PRASAD
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
The respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition filed
O.S.No.11 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge,
Parvatipuram, for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property,
which is RCC slabbed house with two floors, two shops and
appurtenant vacant site, situated in Ward No.3, Block No.13 situated by
the side of the road leading to Vantaram village with Door No.13-
112/113/114 in Sy.No.355/2 and another RCC slabbed building with
appurtenant vacant site with Door No.13-109 with an assessment
No.1642 in the same survey number. Unnecessary details are shorn
off.
2. The revision petitioners-defendants filed their written statement in
the said suit denying the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of
the suit.
3. Be that as it may, the respondent in the present revision, who is
the plaintiff in the suit, filed I.A.No.118 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17
of C.P.C. for amendment of plaint schedule by adding item No.3 in the
schedule as "the lands situated in Mettavalasa village, Bobbili Mandal,
situated in Sy.No.43/11 which is an extent of Acs.2.02 cents dry land",
and consequently to amend para IV in 9th line after the date 12.07.2023
"when the defendants field a counter alleging that they obtained an
unregistered Will from mother of plaintiff on 10.02.2023", and to amend
para V of the plaint schedule, the value of the Court fee in the 6th line
starting after paid under as "the value of Item No.3 is Rs.30,03,000/-
and 3/4th market value is Rs.22,52,250/- and Court fee of Rs.14,026/- is
paid". So also, the total Court fee is to be amended as Rs.2,63,452/-,
para VI of the plaint in the 2nd line of sub-para (a) after schedule
properties "the Will dated 10.02.2023 is not valid and binding on the
plaintiff".
4. The present I.A.No.118 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiff
(respondent in the present revision) alleging that they came to know
about the Will dated 10.02.2023, which is said to be executed in favour
of the defendants, after filing of the counter/ written statement in the
suit. Therefore, it is necessary to add the lands situated in Mettavalasa
village, Bobbili Mandal in Sy.No.43/11 which is an extent of Acs.2.02
cents dry land as item No.3 in the plaint schedule property.
5. The revision petitioners-defendants filed their counter in the said
I.A. and denied the averments in said I.A. and asserted that the
amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all
circumstances and the said amendment will give rise new cause of
action.
6. The learned trial Judge allowed the I.A. observing that the
amendment will not cause prejudice to both parties; to come to
conclusion that allowing the petition to amend the plaint will be useful to
determine the fact in issue and also will be useful to determine the rights
of the parties over the schedule property as well as property added by
virtue of this amendment to the plaint schedule property to avoid
multiplicity of litigation.
7. The said impugned order is assailed in the present Civil Revision
Petition on the grounds that the amendment that it is necessary does
not cause injustice or prejudice to other party and the Will dated
10.02.2023 is not valid Will and the amendment petition is not
maintainable without filing rejoinder.
8. It is imperative to extract Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. as it now
exists is 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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K.
Modi & Ors.1, had occasion to consider and interpret Order VI Rule 17
C.P.C., in which following has been held:-
"15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the
merits of the case that come before them and should,
consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary
for determining the real question in controversy between the
parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the
other side.
10. In the case of Abdul Rehman and Another v. Mohd. Ruldu and
Others2, while dealing with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 that:
"Before considering the factual details and the
materials placed by the appellants praying for amendment of
(2006) 4 SCC 385
(2012) 11 SCC 341
their plaint, it is useful to refer Order VI, Rule 17 which is as
under :
"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 in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial."
It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring
forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the
proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question
in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal
in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the
commencement of the trial. If such application is made after
the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to
arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party
could not have raised the matter before the commencement
of trial.
11. In case of Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra and
Others3, while dealing with the provision under Order 6 Rule 17 of
C.P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:
"The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by
learned counsel for the appellant is Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal &
Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 385 Apex Court had
occasion to consider and interpret Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in
paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18, in which following:
"15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the
merits of the case that come before them and should,
consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary
for determining the real question in controversy between the
parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the
other side.
16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first
part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the court to order
amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall)
and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are
necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in
controversy between the parties."
17. Although Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment in the
pleadings "at any stage of the proceedings", but a limitation
has been engrafted by means of Proviso to the fact that no
application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is
commenced. Reserving the Court's jurisdiction to order for
(2018) 2 SCC 132
permitting the party to amend pleading on being satisfied that
in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the
matter before the commencement of trial. In a suit when trial
commences? Order XVIII of the C.P.C. deal with "Hearing of
the Suit and Examination of Witnesses". Issues are framed
under Order XIV. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court after
reading the plaint and written statement and after examination
under Rule 1 of Order XIV is to frame issues. Order XV deals
with "Disposal of the Suit at the first hearing", when it appears
that the parties are not in issue of any question of law or a
fact. After issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and
the party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the
trial of suit commences.
18. Apex Court in Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr.,
(2009) 2 SCC 409 held that filing of an affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief of the witnesses amounts to
commencement of proceedings. In Paragraph 11 of the
judgment, following has been held:-
"11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is
evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the
said precondition. The question, therefore, which arises for
consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not.
In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed
is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages
of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-
in-chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to
"commencement of proceeding".
12. Whether the plaintiff had any right or not in the property, and
whether the claim is barred by limitation were all the questions which
have to be decided on adducing evidence in the final adjudication, and it
would be decided after considering the evidence and not at the stage of
considering the amendment in the facts of the present case.
13. When it is specifically questioned to the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners the stage of the suit, it was replied that the trial of
the suit had not yet commenced and issues have to be framed.
Technically the suit is in pre-trial stage. The trial has not yet
commenced and the amendment of plaint can be allowed on the anvil of
Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The learned trial Judge has not committed
any wrong while allowing the petition and the present revision petition is
devoid of merit to exercise power vested under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, as this Court didn't see any perversity or unjust in
the order to interdict with it.
14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this
case, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 20.09.2024
Siva/KBN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.876 OF 2024
Date: 20.09.2024
Siva/KBN
