Telangana High Court
Satyam Computers Services Ltd, Ranga ... vs M/S Ekadanta Greenfields Pvt Ltd., ... on 8 June, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2039 of 2016
ORDER:
This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed to set aside the common order dated 28.09.2015 in I.A.No.1590 of 2010 and I.A.No.2968 of 2015 in O.P.SR No.2225 of 2010 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. Perused the record.
3. The respondent herein filed OP SR No.2225 of 2010 before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.22,86,67,100/-. The pauper petition was returned for compliance of some objections and the same was re-submitted along with the application in I.A.No.1590 of 2010 under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") to condone the delay of 91 days in resubmission of the same. The respondent also filed application in I.A.No.2968 of 2015 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the pleadings of ASR,J CRP No.2039_2016 2 the plaint. The petitioner herein filed a detailed counter and opposed the said application. On a consideration of the material on record, the trial Court allowed both the applications by way of common order dated 28.09.2015. Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioner.
4. A perusal of the material on record would disclose that the reasons for the delay in representing the plaint have been stated by the respondent in I.A.No.1590 of 2010 to the effect that the present suit has been filed along with 36 similar suits against the petitioner for recovery of money. It is stated that the respondent engaged one junior advocate Mr.S.Kesava Rao to pursue the suits filed for recovery of money. But the pauper suit filed for recovery of money was returned with objections granting seven days time for resubmission, but because of the death of the grandfather of S.Kesava Rao, he could not attend the Court proceedings for subsequent period of one month and he was not aware about the return of the suit and subsequently he complied the objections and resubmitted the returned plaint, thereby, the delay occurred in resubmission of the suit.
ASR,J CRP No.2039_2016 3
5. On the other hand, it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the enlargement of time under Section 148 of CPC the discretion of the Court is restricted to 30 days only and as the respondent herein sought only condonation of delay which is more than 30 days, the present petition is outside the scope of Section 148 CPC.
6. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial Court has considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh1, Amlendu Kumar Bera and others v. The State of West Bengal2, H.Dohil Constructions Co.P.Ltd. v. Nahar Exports Ltd3, P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another4, Damodaran Pillai and ors v. South Indian Bank Ltd5, Gautam Associates v. Food Corporation of India6 and finally relied on the observations in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu v. Union of India (UOI)7, wherein it was observed that maximum period of 30 days limit under Section 148 of CPC does not put a restriction on the inherent powers of the Court to condone the delay in deserving cases under 1 AIR 2010 SC 3043 2 2013 (4) SCC 52 3 2014(9) SCALE 503 4 AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276 5 2005 (3) UC 1793 6 2009 (111) DRJ 274 7 2005 (6) SCC Page 344 ASR,J CRP No.2039_2016 4 inherent powers. The trial Court further relied on the decisions of Gandeay Shravan Kumar v. D.Srinivasulu (died) per Lrs and ors8, Bhuvaneswari v. R.Elumalal9, Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another10, Lachhiram Chudiwala, HUF v. The Bank of Rajasthan Limited11 and N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy12.
7. I have perused the above decisions and observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order, on the powers under Section 148 of CPC, the trial Court has considered the case taking into consideration of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the reasons stated by the counsel that the advocate who was incharge of collecting the returned bundle of the plaint could not attend the Court for the reason that his grandfather died and in the meantime summer vacation ensued, he came to know about the return of the plaint belatedly and with a delay of 91 days the resubmission was made. The explanation offered by the counsel was considered by the trial Court on the foundation that the refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his 8 2004(1) ALD 639 9 Manu/TN/1069/2002 10 (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 788 11 2006 (6) ALL MR 431 12 (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123 ASR,J CRP No.2039_2016 5 cause and also found that the delay occurred was not deliberate and willful, and due to the default committed by the Advocate for his personal reasons, an innocent party should not suffer injustice. Therefore, I find that the trial Court has rightly condoned the delay in representation of the plaint and allowed I.A.No.1590 of 2010.
8. Coming to the application filed in I.A.No.2968 of 2015 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the pleadings of the plaint including the change of name of M/s Satyaman Computers Ltd., merged with M/s Tech Mahendra Ltd., as per the Amalgamation order of this Court in CP No.123 of 2012. The said application was mainly opposed by the petitioner herein contending that M/s Satyam Computer Services does not exist as per the records of register of companies nor in the eye of law based on merger, therefore, such name in the cause title has to be totally deleted and the name of M/s Tech Mahendra Ltd., alone has to be mentioned, as such, the proposed amendment continuing the name of M/s Satyam Computers Ltd., with a clarification that it is merged with M/s Tech Mahendra Ltd., cannot be permitted and the other proposed amendments details are not there in the earlier pleadings and thus, the ASR,J CRP No.2039_2016 6 petitioner therein seeking to introduce new facts to improve its case, such proposed amendments will change the nature and character of the plaint, therefore, it was pleaded to reject the proposed amendments.
9. The trial Court has taken into consideration of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.Samuel and Ors v. Gattu Mahesh and Ors13, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India14, N.Narayanan v. Adjudicating Officer, SEBI15, Alkapuri Co- operative Housing Society Ltd v. Jayantibhai Naginbhai (deceased) Thr. Lrs16, Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others17 and after considering the legal principles applying the same to the facts of the case has made a detailed discussion about the legality of permitting the proposed amendments and effect thereof and rightly allowed the said petition.
10. I have perused the above decisions, the impugned order, proposed amendments and keeping in view the principles to be kept in mind, have been carefully followed by the learned trial Court while appreciating the material on record. The 13 2012 (2) ALD 40 (SC) 14 AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2518 15 AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3191 16 AIR 2005 SC Page 1948 17 (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 757 ASR,J CRP No.2039_2016 7 respondent herein has substantially established that there is sufficient cause and satisfactory explanation is offered and on merits has rightly allowed the said application for amendment of the pleadings.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order do not suffer from any illegality, impropriety and infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY Date: 08.06.2023 ns