Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gorantla Kondalarayudu vs Marvel Organics, Rep. By Its Partners ... on 12 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(5)ALT663
ORDER B.K. Somasekhara, J.
1. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chirala on I.A. 1389/93 in O.S. 18/93 dated 2-8-1996 is challenged. The application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondents are defendants. The application was resisted. After hearing both the sides, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the proposed amendments could not be accepted and the application was filed with a view to drag on the proceedings.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that in the nature of the proposed amendments, the clerical errors and factual misstatements were sought to be rectified. That was to be done in view of the defendants filing the written statement after a long time. According to him even the partnership deed and the other documents clearly showed the realities which have to be explained by means of the amendment. The learned advocate for the respondents has pointed out that no such documents have been referred to in the application for amendment and the so called amendments were not regarding the clerical errors.
3. The suit is for dissolution of partnership firm between the petitioner and the respondents and for accounts. These are the proposed amendments:
"(i) In para III (c) for the existing 5th line and 6th line, the following shall be substituted:
"the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant have deposited Rs. 15,000/- each in the Bank and have given the same as security to the"
(ii) After line No. 11 in para III (c) add the following:
"and the said godown was also hypothecated to the A.P.S.F.C. for obtaining financial assistance for purchase of machinery and working capital"
(iii) In first line in page 3, for the existing words "The firm carried on business" the following shall be substituted:
"The firm was to carry on business"
(iv) For the existing last sentence in para III (d), the following shall be substituted:
"The amount of Rs. 60,000/- is with the plaintiff and it is in tact"
(v) In page 6, para III (h), after the first word "Corporation" the following shall be inserted:
"and to release the godown which was given as security for obtaining financial assistance for purchase of machinery and working capital"
The respective paragraphs in which such amendments were marked clearly show that factually they are not only inconsistent but also an introduction of new facts. If the documents showed something else than the allegations in the plaint as above, only the respective paragraphs were the basis to the documents themselves. Thereby, the plaintiff wanted to delete or add certain things in the plaint which should not only decide the truth but also change the nature of the pleadings to prejudice the defendants in regard to the defence already taken and the valuable admissions got by means of the pleas already existing. When the proposed amendments were really intended to remove any clerical errors by introducing or substituting new facts, there was no ground to reject the amendment. The question is not whether the amendments are intended to delay the matter. The question is whether the amendments were necessary and proper to be allowed. On the face of it, the proposed amendments were by way of explanatory notes or reply to the defence taken by the respondents regarding which the plaintiff could have approached the Court for leave to file additional pleadings under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. They have not done so and the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in dismissing the application for amendment. There is no error either of jurisdiction or law in passing the order by the learned Subordinate Judge to interfere with the order under Section 115 C.P.C.
4. Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. should not be confused by reading together that it permits only additional written statement by way of pleadings. Because the expression used therein is 'that no pleading' subsequent to written statement shall be filed meaning thereby both plaint and written statement. Pleadings shall mean plaint and written statement as per Order 6 Rule 1 C.P.C. In that context, the pleadings and additional pleadings in Order 8 Rule 9 include the additional plaint also which can be either called as rejoinder or the reply in its real consequences.
5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed, however, keeping open liberty for the petitioner to approach the trial Court under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking leave to file additional pleadings. No costs.