Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pothukuchi Syamasundary, Pothukuchi ... vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, Karamchedu ... on 31 October, 2003
JUDGMENT
P.S. Narayana
1. Heard Sri Velivela Srinivasa Rao, representing Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, the counsel for revision petitioners and Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, representing Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, the counsel representing the contesting respondent. The third respondent in C.R.P.No.3004 of 2003 filed C.M.P.No.24284 of 2003 in C.M.P.No.14770 of 2003 in C.R.P.No.3004 of 2003 to vacate the interim order dated 25.7.2003 and both the counsel while making elaborate submissions, also made a request to dispose of the main C.R.P. itself and hence, the main C.R.P. itself is taken up for final hearing.
2. Heard both the counsel at length. Sri Srinivasa Rao had submitted that originally, the suit was instituted as against defendants 1 and 2, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Karamchedu and the District Collector, Prakasam District and the third defendant was subsequently added, who had taken a stand in her written statement that one Varalaxamma executed a will in her favour at Vijayawada, bequeathing some of the plaint-A schedule property which she had got from her husband towards her right of maintenance and the same was enlarged into an absolute estate and subsequent thereto, she approached the Revenue Authorities praying for the grant of Pass Books as per the terms of the will. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the changed position, the revision petitioners, the plaintiffs in the suit, filed I.A.No.534 of 2003 in O.S.No.16 of 2001 praying for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel also submitted that the proposed amendment is definitely essential for the purpose of adjudicating the matters in controversy. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to the prayer which had been prayed for in the suit O.S.No.16 of 2001 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, and the present amendment prayed for in the memo filed along with the application praying for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel also submitted that in the light of the stand taken by the proposed party, third defendant, who was added as a party to the litigation in addition to the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for in the suit, the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs have a right to get their names mutated in the revenue records relating to the plaint schedule property also had been prayed for. The learned counsel also would maintain that the addition of the third defendant is a subsequent event and in the light of the same, the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Purchur, instead of allowing the application, had dismissed the application on certain grounds, which are unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on a decision in SAMPATH KUMAR vs. AYYAKANNU, 2002(3) S.C., 229.
3. Per contra, Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar made the following submissions. The learned counsel would maintain that reasons praying for amendment had not been specified in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The learned counsel also further submitted that it is no doubt true that the third defendant was brought on record subsequently, but however, it does not alter the situation in any way since the plaintiffs may have to fail or succeed on their own strength in proving the case. The learned counsel also pointed out that the very relief prayed for in the suit is for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make mutation of entries relating to the plaint schedule property in revenue records, ROR 10(1), Adangal etc. with the name of the first plaintiff and to issue Pass Book and Title Deed relating to the plaint schedule property in the name of the first plaintiff and such a relief cannot be granted by a Civil Court in the light of the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act,1971, and in the light of the provisions of the said Act, the suit itself is not maintainable. The learned counsel also while elaborating the submissions had pointed out that the amendment application itself was not made in accordance with law since a separate memo was filed specifying the proposed amendments, which is not in accordance with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The learned counsel ultimately had concluded that in the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Purchur, the impugned order needs no interference.
4. As can be seen from the material available on record, Bhagi Venkata Subba Laxmi, third respondent in the C.R.P. and the present third defendant in O.S.No.16/2001 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Purchur, came on record by virtue of the orders made in I.A.No.851 of 2001 dated 27.03.2002. The said third defendant moved I.A.No.851 of 2001 in O.S.No.16 of 2001 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead her as third defendant in the suit on the ground that she is having title to some extent of the suit schedule property and she was granted Pattedar Pass Book already by the Revenue Authorities and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and hence, she should be brought on record as already referred to supra, the said application was allowed. In view of the same, the revision petitioners-plaintiffs moved an application I.A.No.534 of 2003 in O.S.No.16 of 2001 praying for permission to amend the plaint as per the memo filed along with the application. The memo filed on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs reads as hereunder:
"It is submitted that before the cause of action para in page-3 after para-d the following may be added.
"e. It is further submitted that the 3rd defendant was added as a party during the pendency of the suit. The said Varalaxamma never executed any will as alleged by the 3rd defendant. She died intestate. The alleged will dt.12.01.95 filed along with the written statement of the 3rd defendant is a forged one and not genuine and it is not binding on the plaintiffs and it was created just before the filing of her written statement as after thought.
f. That the said Varalaxamma lived along with his husband Punnaiah at Bapatla. After his death her son, Sreerama Murthy - who is the 1st plaintiff's husband - brought her to Vijayawada to his house and till her death the said Varalaxamma lived along with the plaintiffs under their protection in the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs looked after her with great respect. She never resided in the house of the 3rd defendant. Even the 3rd defendant had no cordial terms with Varalaxamma during her life time. The 3rd defendant never in possession of either in part of the "A" schedule property. The said Varalaxamma did not get any transferable right over plaint A schedule property. She was never in possession of schedule property at any point during her life time. The plaintiffs only have right, title and possession over the entire plaint schedule property. They are the absolute owners of the entire plaint schedule property."
5. In prayer and relief para after the words "against the defendants" the following para may be added:
"a. for declaration that the plaintiffs have a right to get their names mutated in the revenue records relating to the plaint schedule property".
6. Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice dealing with amendment in pleadings, reads as hereunder:
"Amendment in pleadings: An application for amendment made under Order I, Rule 10, Order VI, Rule 17, or Order XXII of the Code, shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments. The Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these Rules.
Provided that verbal correction may at any time be made in pleadings with permission of the Court".
7. It is pertinent to note that the application was numbered and the same was dismissed on merits and the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur had not rejected the application on the ground of the non-compliance with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice. It is no doubt true that normal practice is to specify all the details relating to the proposed amendments also in the application. But in the relief prayed for in the application itself, it was specified that a memo is being filed along with the application and hence, the said memo filed containing the proposed amendments, in my considered opinion, may be read as part and parcel of the application moved for amendment of pleading by the petitioners-plaintiffs. Too a technical interpretation cannot be adopted in matters of this nature. It is no doubt true that Section 8 of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act,1971 deals with bar of suits, but however, the maintainability of the suit or otherwise may be a triable issue which may have to be decided while disposing of the main suit. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge had not dismissed the application on the said ground. Be that as it may, here is a case where the contesting respondent, third defendant, came on record on her own accord by filing an application to implead herself as a party and in the light of the specific stand taken by her, the petitioners-plaintiffs thought it fit to amend the pleading and also with a prayer relating to declaration, the said application was dismissed by the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur. When an application to implead a party is permitted and fresh parties are brought on record and the respective written statements are put forth and at that stage, if it is felt by the plaintiffs that certain amendments are to be introduced in their pleading by virtue of the subsequent event of the impleading of a fresh party and in the light of the stand taken by such fresh party being brought on record, courts are expected to exercise the discretion carefully and cautiously and such amendments ought to be liberally allowed, so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to shorten the litigation between the parties. In SAMPATH KUMAR vs. AYYAKANNU first supra, the Apex Court held that where the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and the defendant pleaded that on the date of the suit he was in possession of the property and hence, a suit for injunction is not maintainable and after a lapse of 11 years before the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for declaration of title and for possession, it was held that such amendment may be permitted to curtail multiplicity of proceedings and such pre-trial amendments are to be allowed more liberally than those sought after the commencement of the trial. In SHIKHARCHAND JAIN vs. DIGAMBER JAIN PRABAND KARINI SABHA, , it was held by the Apex Court that, "Ordinarily, a suit is tried in all its stages on the cause of action as it existed on the date of its institution. But it is open to a Court (including a court of appeal) to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or (3) to do complete justice between the parties."
8. While dealing with the subsequent events and the need to permit the suitable amendments, the same view was expressed in, VELAMMAL vs. CHOKKAIAH GOUNDER, , SUNDARAM IYER IN RE, , 1963, 1 Madras Law Journal, 113 AND IN BHIMUDU vs. PITCHAYYA, AIR 1946 Madras, 497. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, had committed an illegality in refusing the petitioners-plaintiffs to amend the pleading. It is needless to say that the truth or falsity of the amendment of a pleading need not be gone into and these are all the aspects to be decided at the time of disposing of the main suit. It is clear, as reflected from the record, that the third defendant voluntarily came on record, which necessitated the petitioners-plaintiffs to pray for suitable amendments. This is definitely a subsequent event, since the plaintiffs had not visualized on the date of institution of the suit that the proposed party is going to come on record as third defendant at a later stage. In view of the same, the learned Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Parchur, instead of allowing the application for amendment, had definitely committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application and if the said order is allowed to stand, the petitioners-plaintiffs would be put to serious prejudice. In view of the same, the petitioners-plaintiffs are bound to succeed and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.