Telangana High Court
Sri. Karnam Srinivas Rao vs Smt. Durga Devi Mundada on 26 March, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1209 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants
aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2022 in I.A. No.554 of 2019 in O.S.
No.64 of 2018 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.
2. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 4 in O.S. No.64 of 2018.
O.S. No.64 of 2018 was filed by the respondents-plaintiff Nos.1 and 2
seeking permanent injunction. After receiving summons, the petitioners-
defendants filed their written statement submitting that they had purchased
the land in Sy.No.334. The petitioners filed an application under Order VI
Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of
Practice to amend the written statement in paragraph Nos.1, 7, 8 and 9 to
add 'Survey Nos.332 and 334' in place of 'Survey No.334'. They
submitted that their vendors were the original pattadars and possessors of
the land in Survey Nos.332 and 334, but the same was not shown in their
registered sale deed as such, they mentioned that they were having the
land in Survey No.334. While their Advocate at High Court was preparing
the counter against the Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, found that
Dr.GRR,J
only one Survey No.334 was mentioned in their registered sale deed
instead of two Survey Numbers i.e. 332 and 334. Immediately, they
rectified their registered sale deeds and filed the petition for amendment of
their written statement. The said fact came to their knowledge only
recently and immediately thereafter, they filed the petition for amendment.
3. The respondents-plaintiffs filed counter stating that permitting
such amendment would be giving an opportunity to fill-up the gaps to
develop the case of the petitioners. The petitioners-defendants had not
filed the certified copy of the registered sale deed in proof of their
contention and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. The trial court, on hearing both the counsel on record, dismissed
the petition observing that the supportive document, the rectified
registered sale deed, was not filed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said
application, the petitioners-defendants preferred this revision.
5. Heard Sri K. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners. No
representation by the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the
amended CPC, all amendments prior to commencement of trial had to be
Dr.GRR,J
allowed liberally. The trial court erred in dismissing the application on
the ground of non-production of the document. The amendment
application was filed only to amend their pleadings. The proof of the same
could not have been gone into at that stage. By allowing the amendment,
it would not change the nature of the defence or it would cause any
prejudice to the respondents-plaintiffs and prayed to set aside the order
passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
7. Perused the record.
8. As seen from the record, the plaintiffs filed the suit submitting
that they were owners and possessors of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties pertaining to Plot Nos.49 and 50 admeasuring 259 sq. yds., Sy.
No.332 and Plot Nos.52 and 53 admeasuring 259 sq. yds., in Sy. No.332
situated at Patancheru (Ganesh Marg), Rampur locality of Karimnagar
Town and District.
9. The defendants filed their written statement contending that their
land was in Sy. No.334. They filed I.A. No.554 of 2019 seeking
amendment of their written statement stating that their vendors were
having land in both the survey numbers i.e. Sy. No.332 and 334, but the
same was not mentioned in their registered sale deed, as such, they had
Dr.GRR,J
filed their written statement stating that their land was in Sy. No.334, but
later they came to know that the land of their vendors was in two survey
numbers i.e. 332 and 334 as such, they rectified their registered sale deeds
and also filed application seeking amendment of their written statement
and also stated that they had filed the rectification deed along with their
application in I.A. No.554 of 2019, but, the trial court without observing
the same had dismissed the application. Their further contention was that
the court could not ask for proof for amendment of the pleadings at this
stage.
10. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no issues
are framed by the trial court and the case is only at the stage of pleadings.
As the primary purpose of allowing amendments to pleadings, including
written statements is to ensure that the court can address the real issues in
the case and determine the truth, and as the amendment sought by the
petitioners-defendants would not introduce a new cause of action, the trial
court ought to have allowed the petition. The amendment of a written
statement need to be considered liberally than the amendment of the
plaint. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
D.K. Narayan Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and another 1 , it was
(2000 (1) SCC 712)
Dr.GRR,J
mandatory on the part of the court to allow all amendments which are
necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the
parties. The court is not obligated to go into the correctness or falsity of
the case of either side at this stage. The merits of the case are not to be
adjudged at the stage of allowing or rejecting the prayer for amendment.
The rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good
conscience.
11. As such, the court ought to have allowed the application
without calling for any proof of the same. As such, this Court considers
that the order passed by the trial court seeking for proof of the amendment
is erroneous and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside
the order dated 25.01.2022 in I.A. No.554 of 2019 in O.S. No.64 of 2018
passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, permitting the
petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 4 to carry-out the amendments, as prayed
for. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
March 26th, 2025
KTL
