Telangana High Court
Vadde Varalaxmi vs Gandham Veerabhadram on 10 December, 2021
Bench: A.Venkateshwara Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CRP No.284 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners/respondents/defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11
have filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India assailing the order dated 19.01.2021 in IA No.3 of 2020 in OS
No.145 of 2012 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking
the cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-VIII Additional District
Judge, Khammam.
2. The said IA No.3 of 2020 filed under Order-VI, Rule-17 r/w Sec.151
CPC was allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint by
correcting registered document number as "3974 of 2012, dated
06.09.2011" in place of document number as "1097 of 2012, dated
21.01.2012" at paragraph Nos.1 and 7 of the plaint.
3. As per the proceedings dated 15.04.2021, this Court has directed the
trial Court to proceed with the arguments. However, it shall not pronounce
the final judgment till further orders. Thus, no stay is granted this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants seeks to submit
that on introducing the new document number by the plaintiff, prejudice
will be caused to the respondents/defendants and that the evidence on both
sides is completed. At this stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend
the pleadings introducing the new document number in place of registered
document No.1097 of 2012, dated 21.01.2012.
AVR,J
CRP No.284 of 2021
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants relied on the
principles laid in Chander kanta bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand1, whereas
the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the principles laid
in i) Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another v. Raghu
Raj2 and ii) V.I.P. Emporium, Hyderabad and another v. TCI Finance Ltd.,
Secunderabad3. The respondent/plaintiff has also filed a detailed counter,
vide USR No.39483 of 2021, dated 18.11.2021.
6. It is true that the said application under Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC is
filed at the fag end of the trial after conclusion of the evidence on both
sides. But, after filing of the revision petition, it appears IA Nos.8 and 9 of
2021 were also filed. The suit was reopened. PW.1 was recalled for the
purpose of cross-examination on the aspect of amendment of number of
sale deed and date of sale deed and that applications were also allowed on
12.04.2021. Thus, the proposed amendment which was allowed introducing
the correct document number and date in the pleadings is carried out,
consequently the plaintiff's evidence was reopened and PW.1 was recalled.
He gave evidence with reference to amended registered document number
and date. Furthermore, in view of the mere change of document number as
"3974 of 2012 dated 06.09.2011" in place of document No.1097 of 2012
dated 21.01.2012 at paragraph Nos.1 and 7 of the plaint, no prejudice
would cause to the petitioners/defendants, as the boundaries and extent of
schedule of property is not changed. In addition to it, this document was
filed along with the plaint, but in the pleadings the wrong number is typed.
AIR 2008 SC 2234
(2008) 13 SC 395
2012 (3) ALD 219
AVR,J
CRP No.284 of 2021
The defendants did not take any objection either in the written statement or
in the cross-examination of PW.1 wherein the wrong document number is
typed.
7. In the circumstances, such amendment was required for determining
the real dispute between the parties. Further, the proposed amendment was
carried, parties have acted upon and no stay was granted by this Court. On
the other hand, this Court, as per the proceedings dated 15.04.2021,
directed the Court below to proceed with the trial and other consequential
steps. Resultantly, suit was amended to the extent indicated above,
plaintiff's evidence was reopened, PW.1 was recalled and he gave
additional evidence with reference to correct registered document number
as amended in the plaint at paragraph Nos.1 and 7. In addition to it, IA No.3
of 2020 was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the defendants
and the record shows that they have accepted the costs.
8. In those circumstances, I do not find any merit in the revision
petition and it is accordingly dismissed confirming the order date
19.01.2021 in IA No.3 of 2020 in OS No.145 of 2012. There shall be no
order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this revision petition
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Date: 10.12.2021
Isn
