Telangana High Court
P.Rathnamma vs Smt.P. Eedulakanti Shoba on 25 January, 2023
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3134 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Pratusha Bopanna, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, as well as Sri P.Sriharinath, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Challenge in this Civil Revision is the order that is
rendered by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.414 of 2022 in O.S.No.68 of
2015, dated 22.11.2022.
3. The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff to the suit,
moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section
151 C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to amend the
plaint. The trial Court through the impugned order negatived
the relief sought for and therefore, the petitioner is before this
Court.
4. Making her submission, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner contends that the revision petitioner did
not seek for altering or changing the nature of the suit, but
she sought for a relief to declare the judgment and the final
decree passed in a suit for partition as null and void. But, the
Dr CSL, J
CRP.No.3134 of 2022
trial Court without looking at the ground for which such a
relief was sought for, dismissed the application. Learned
counsel submits that the pleadings can be amended at any
stage of the suit and indeed, as the learned counsel for the
petitioner who appeared before the trial Court was not
diligent, he did not seek for the required relief at the very
inception of the suit and therefore, just opportunity ought to
have been given to the petitioner for making the necessary
amendment for seeking the appropriate relief.
5. Stating that the ground of delay cannot be taken into
consideration when the real controversy is sought to be
resolved through the proposed amendment, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner relied upon the decision of the the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Surender Kumar
Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh1. Also, making a submission
that when no new pleadings are introduced or where the
cause of action or the nature of the suit is not sought to be
changed, the proposed amendment has to be allowed, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case between
(2009) 10 SCC 626
Dr CSL, J
CRP.No.3134 of 2022
Kondeti Madhu Kumar Vs. Rayapati Pitchiah and
Others2.
6. Vehemently opposing the relief sought for and the
genuineness in the submissions thus made by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 states that the suit is of the year 2015
and indeed, the petitioner earlier moved an application vide
I.A.No.1380 of 2018 for amendment of plaint and the said
application was allowed. But, even at that time, the relief
sought through I.A.No.414 of 2022 was not sought for.
Learned counsel also submits that the judgment rendered in
O.S.No.110 of 2018, which is a suit for partition, attained
finality and it is not the case of the petitioner that she is
unaware of the said fact. Learned counsel also states that the
party to the suit in O.S.No.110 of 2018 is none other than
the husband of the petitioner and when an application was
filed for passing of final decree, the husband of the petitioner
endorsed and reported no objection for passing of final
decree. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner
had got an opportunity to seek the proposed relief at the time
MANU/AP/1608/2022
Dr CSL, J
CRP.No.3134 of 2022
of filing of the suit itself, she did not do so and she did not
take any steps even thereafter for a considerable time and
further, though she moved an application for amendment of
plaint earlier vide I.A.No.1380 of 2018, such a relief was not
sought for and when the suit has come up for arguments,
she leisurely moved an application for getting separate relief
and hence, such an amendment cannot be allowed to be
made.
7. In this context, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
to 4 relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Amaravati in the case between Savanam
Polamma and another Vs. Sattupalli Purnachandra Rao
and others3 .
8. A perusal of record discloses that the petitioner, who
is the plaintiff to the suit, in the plaint itself made a mention
about the decree obtained in O.S.No.110 of 2008, more
particularly at para 8. Her version, however, is that it was
obtained behind her back.
9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 4, by order in I.A.No.2907 of 2013 in
2019 (5) ALD 189 (AP)
Dr CSL, J
CRP.No.3134 of 2022
O.S.No.110 of 2018, which is an application filed for passing
of final decree, it is clear that the respondent therein, who is
none other than the husband of the petitioner, in his counter
endorsed no objection for allotment of eastern portion of the
suit land towards the half share of the petitioners therein.
Further, why the petitioner has not sought for the required
and appropriate relief at the very inception of the suit is not
mentioned anywhere. That apart, though the petitioner
sought for amendment of plaint in the year 2018, vide
I.A.No.1380 of 2018 such a relief was not sought for. What
made her to seek the proposed relief after a lapse of
considerable period, i.e., after seven years from the date of
institution of suit, is not mentioned anywhere. The reasons
assigned are neither convincing nor appears genuine.
Though, there is no bar for seeking appropriate amendment
of the pleadings at any time during the suit proceedings, that
does not mean that the parties can get the pleadings
amended at any time of the suit proceedings as per their
whims and fancies or convenience. This Court does not find
any grounds for interfering with the well-reasoned order of
the trial Court.
Dr CSL, J
CRP.No.3134 of 2022
10. Having considered all the factual aspects, the learned
judge of the trial Court had come to a right conclusion that
the relief sought for cannot be granted. The observation made
by the learned judge of the trial Court in the impugned order
that the petitioner is not diligent cannot be interfered with.
11. Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
25.01.2023
dr
