Telangana High Court
Mr. Mohd Afzal vs Smt Mohiuddin Bee on 5 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2157 OF 2024
ORDER:
This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
assails the order dated 14.06.2024 in I.A.No.224 of 2022 in
O.S.No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, trial Court),
whereby the application filed by the plaintiff (respondent No.1
herein) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC
was allowed.
2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 3,
respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.2
herein is defendant No.3 in the said suit. For the sake of
convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as
they are arrayed in the said suit.
3. The background facts are that the plaintiff filed the said
suit against the defendants for declaration, recovery of
possession and perpetual injunction. The defendants entered
appearance in the suit proceedings. While so, the plaintiff
filed I.A.No.224 of 2022 to amend some of the paras of the
plaint. On contest, the trial Court, vide impugned order,
allowed the said application. Aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 to 3
filed the present revision petition.
4. Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendant Nos.1 to 3, at the outset fairly submits
that no doubt the amendment application was filed at
pre-trial stage which could not have been allowed because the
plaintiff is seeking annulment/setting aside of sale deed of the
year 1984. Thus, question of limitation, change of cause of
action and change in the nature of suit arose, but the same
were not considered by the trial Court. By placing reliance on
a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Basavaraj v.
Indira 1, it is submitted that change of cause of action is a
relevant factor which should have been considered by the trial
Court.
5. Sounding a contra note, Sri M.A. Basith, learned
counsel for the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 3, supported
the impugned order and referred a judgment of the Supreme
Court Pankaja v. Yellappa (D) By L.Rs. 2 to bolster the
submission that ground of delay can be decided at
appropriate stage after allowing the amendment.
1 2024 INSC 151
2 AIR 2004 SC 4102
6. The parties confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above and no other point is pressed.
7. Admittedly, the application for amendment was filed
before commencement of trial. As per proviso to Order VI
Rule 7 of CPC, a pre-trial amendment needs to be dealt with
leniently (see Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu 3). Whereas,
the application preferred after commencement of trial must
show 'due diligence'. The judgment of Supreme Court in
Basavaraj (supra) deals with an amendment application
which was filed after commencement of trial which is evident
from para 8 of the judgment. Thus, the parameter was
different for pre-trial stage and post trial stage.
8. The Supreme Court in Pankaja (supra) opined that the
aspect of delay can be decided at appropriate stage.
Interestingly, learned counsel for the petitioners could not
point out any specific objection from his counter relating to
bar of limitation.
9. The amendment application can be allowed to avoid
multiplicity of litigation also. The Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Sushil Kumar Kanungo v. M.P. Rajya Sahkari
3 2012 (11) SCC 341
Bank Maryadit 4 considered the judgment of the Supreme
Court in this aspect and held as under:
"10. On the basis of the same, if the purpose of Orders 6
Rule 17 is seen, then the dominant purpose of the same is
to minimise the litigation so that all relevant facts could be
decided finally on merits in the sarnie suit without
permitting for further litigation. The dominant purpose for
amendment to minimise the litigation has been considered
by the Apex Court in Ragu Thilak D. John v. S Rayappan,
(2001) 2 SCC 472 wherein the Apex Court has considered
all the earlier judgments relating to amendment and
ultimately came to a conclusion that the purpose and
object of filing the application for amendment is also to
minimise the litigation. The relevant para 5 from the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Ragu Trials
case (supra) is reproduced as under:--
"After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir
Khan, L.J., Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner &
Company, Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, Ganesh Trading
Co. v. Moji Ram and various other authorities, this
Court in B.K. Narayan Piilai v. Parameswaran Pillai held
: (SCC p. 715, para 3);
"3. The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.G.
is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings
in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The
power to allow the amendment is wide and can be
exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests
of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various
High Courts and this Court. It is true that the
amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and
under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the
Courts while deciding such prayers should hot adopt a
hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be
the general rule particularly in cases where the other
side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities
of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in
the administration of justice between the parties.
Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid
uncalled for multiplicity of litigation."
10. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution is limited. Interference can be made if order
4 2008 SCC OnLine MP
impugned is patently illegal or suffers from palpable
procedural impropriety. Another view is possible, is not a
ground for interference {See Shalini Shyam Shetty v.
Rajendra Shankar Patil 5}.
11. In the instant case, in the opinion of this Court, the
learned Tribunal has taken a plausible view. In absence of
any ingredient on which interference can be made,
interference is declined.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the order dated 14.06.2024 in I.A.No.224 of 2022
in O.S.No.13 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There shall be no order
as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
Date: 05.09.2024
TJMR
5 (2010) 8 SCC 329
