Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Kalpana And Anr. vs P. Venugopal Reddy on 26 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2005AP484, 2005(6)ALD79, 2005(5)ALT419
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. In a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the revision petitioners in favour of the respondent, after the respondent closed his evidence and when the case was posted for the evidence of revision petitioners, they filed an application, seeking permission of the Court to amend their written statement, by introducing a plea that the second sheet of the suit agreement of sale, Ex.A.1, is substituted with a forged and fabricated sheet which was dismissed by the trial Court by the order under revision, on being opposed by the respondent.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that since the petitioners came to know about the substitution of the second sheet of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale only when the case was posted for their evidence, the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that petitioners who admitted execution of Ex.A.1 in their written statement cannot be permitted to withdraw from the admission by way of amendment, by placing strong reliance in M/S Modi Spinning & Weaving mills co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co., and since not even a suggestion was put to P.W.1 that the 2nd sheet of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale is substituted for the original sheet.
3. Before considering the contention raised, I feel it relevant to refer some of the provisions in the Civil Rules of Practice (for brevity, "CRP"), which have relevance for deciding this petition.
As per Rule 20(4) of CRP every plaint or proceeding presented to or filed in a Court shall be accompanied by as many copies on plain paper as referred to in Rule 16 as there are defendants or respondents. Rule 16 C.R.P. contemplates the foot of the plaint containing a list of documents filed therewith Form No.7 in consonance with Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. Rule 117 of CRP, empowers inspection of documents filed into Court by a party or his advocate by filing a memo, seeking leave of the Court for such inspection. Rule 125 CRP, contemplates a party filing 'proceedings' into Court furnishing, free of charge, copies thereof to other side appearing through advocates. 'Proceeding', defined in Rule 2 (l) of C.R.P., includes all documents presented to or filed in Court by any party, or Commissioner or other Officer of Court, other than the documents produced as evidence. Even if we assume that Rule 125 C.R.P. has application only to 'proceedings' filed into Court subsequent to the institution of the suit. In view of Rule 20(4) read with Rule 16 C.R.P., plaintiff shall have to produce copies of all documents filed along with the plaint into Court for service on the other side. Even if the copies of documents are not filed the party who is not served with copies of documents, can by invoking Rule 117 C.R.P. can inspect the documents.
5. In view of the above, it can be presumed that copy of Ex.A.1 was served on the petitioners and if not they had not been so served, since they had an opportunity to inspect Ex.A.1 before filing their written statement and since no ordinary prudent man would admit the execution of a document without knowing the contents thereof, and since it is not the case of the petitioners that a copy of Ex.A.1 was not served on them, and if it was not served on them, have not explained the reasons for not inspecting the same before filing their written statement taking the aid of Rule 117 C.R.P. It has to be taken that petitioner with knowledge of the contents of Ex.A.1 have filed the written statement admitting execution of Ex.A.1. Significantly no suggestion was put to P.W.1 during cross-examination about the alleged substitution of page 2 of Ex.A.1. On the other hand the only suggestion put to him is that the entire consideration has to be paid on or before 05-12-1995 and the sale de! ed has to be got registered in his favour.
6. In the above circumstances, permitting the petitioners to withdraw the admission of execution of Ex.A.1 by permitting them to take a diametrically opposite plea, amounting to denial of execution of Ex.A.1 would definitely cause prejudice to the respondent and so, as per the ratio in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., and reiterated in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, petitioners cannot be permitted to amend the written statement as sought and so, the order of the trial Court needs no interference.
7. The Civil Revision Petition therefore is dismissed with costs.