Teppa Nagaraju And Another vs Teppa Vishnu Vishnumurthy And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3030 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

                    CRP No.288 of 2022

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/plaintiffs

assailing the order dated 22.12.2021 in IA No.214 of 2021

in OS No.60 of 2016 on the file of the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Nagarkurnool.

2. This application in IA No.214 of 2021 was filed under

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short

'CPC') praying to reopen the original suit for filing implead

petition to avoid legal complications in the suit. It was

dismissed by the trial Court with an observation that the

petitioners/plaintiffs despite being aware of the plea of

non-joinder of necessary parties taken by the respondents/

defendants in their written statement have proceeded with

the trial, adduced evidence on both sides and the matter is

being adjourned for arguments. In such circumstances, if

the petition is allowed, prejudice would cause to the

respondents/defendants and it amounts to permitting the

AVRJ CRP No.288 of 2022

plaintiffs to fill up the lacunae in their case. Assailing the

said orders, the present civil revision petition is filed by the

plaintiffs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners

/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants. Perused the

material available on record. Detailed submissions made

on either side have received due consideration by this

Court.

4. As per the material available on record, the plaintiffs

have filed the original suit against the defendants for

partition and separate possession. As observed by the trial

Court, the defendants have filed the written statement on

23.08.2017 itself with a specific plea that the suit is bad

for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the real sisters of

first respondent are not added as parties to the suit. In

spite of the above objection raised by the respondents/

defendants, the petitioners/plaintiffs did not take any

steps for impleading them at the initial stage or filed any

rejoinder denying the averments in the written statement

and allowed the proceedings to be continued. By the time

AVRJ CRP No.288 of 2022

of filing this application, evidence on both sides is

concluded and the original suit was adjourned for three

times at the request of the plaintiffs for advancing

arguments.

5. Thereafter, the present application is filed to reopen

the suit enabling the plaintiffs to file an implead petition in

view of the plea taken by the defendants in their written

statement. Accordingly, the trial Court has dismissed the

said application with an observation that if the plaintiffs

are permitted to reopen the suit at this belated stage, it

amounts to permitting them to fill up the lacunae in their

evidence after the defence evidence is concluded.

6. In this context, I may refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bagai Construction,

through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v. M/s. Gupta Building

Material Store1 wherein while dealing with the similar facts

it is held that recording of evidence has to be a continuous

process followed by arguments and decision of the Court.

Adjournments, reopening and recall of witnesses are to be

AIR 2013 SC 1849

AVRJ CRP No.288 of 2022

allowed only in compelling circumstances. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court further held that there must be a constant

endeavour to follow such time schedule and if the same is

not followed, the very purpose of amending several

provisions in the CPC would get defeated.

7. Reverting back to the facts of the present case as

indicated above, the original suit is filed in the year 2016,

written statement was filed on 23.08.2017 with a specific

plea that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties, but the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to

implead the real sisters of first defendant. Issues were

settled, evidence on both sides commenced and concluded.

Thereafter, the original suit underwent three adjournments

for arguments. At this belated stage, the plaintiffs have

filed the present application under Section 151 of CPC to

reopen the suit enabling the plaintiffs to file implead

petition to bring the sisters of the first defendant on to

record in view of the plea taken by the defendants in their

written statement filed on 23.08.2017.

AVRJ CRP No.288 of 2022

8. When the facts of the present case are tested on the

touchstone of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the above decision, the answer is in the negative.

The plaintiffs are not entitled for reopening the suit in

casual manner defeating the very purpose of amendment to

CPC. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I do not find

any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court and

the order impugned does not warrant any interference by

this Court.

9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

confirming the order dated 22.12.2021 in IA No.214 of

2021 in OS No.60 of 2016 on the file of the learned Senior

Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool. However, in the

circumstances of the case, both the parties shall bear their

respective costs.

10. Considering the fact that the original suit is filed in

the year 2016, evidence was concluded long back and the

matter was adjourned for three times for arguments at the

instance of plaintiffs by the time of filing this application in

IA No.214 of 2021, the learned Senior Civil Judge,

AVRJ CRP No.288 of 2022

Nagarkurnool is hereby directed to dispose of the original

suit, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. Both the parties to the suit shall cooperate

with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit, as

directed.

11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any

pending in this revision petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.

Date: 23.06.2022 Isn