Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Vinayak Reddy And Anr. vs Shriram Chits Limited, Branch I And Ors. on 1 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)ALD205, 2006(6)ALT47, AIR 2006 ANDHRA PRADESH 1341, 2006 (5) ABR (NOC) 820 (AP), 2006 (5) AIR BOM R 820, 2006 (6) AKAR (NOC) 846 (AP), 2006 A I H C 2211, (2006) 6 ANDH LT 47, (2006) 4 ANDHLD 205, 2006 AIHC 2211
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 543 of 2002 against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4, in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nizamabad for recovery of amount, on the strength of a chit transaction. It was pleaded that being the prized subscribers, the petitioners were paid a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/-, and having received the same, the petitioners failed to pay the instalments. The trial of the suit is in progress, and recording of evidence on both the sides is said to have been Concluded.
2. The first respondent filed LA. No. 1205 of 2004 with a prayer to reopen the evidence, and I.A. No. 1206 of 2005 under Rule 17 of Order IV of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to amend the plaint.
3. It was pleaded that soon after the petitioners emerged as prized subscribers, they instructed the first respondent to invest the amount in M/s. Shriram Investments Limited, and accordingly, investment was made in the names of the persons indicated by the petitioners herein. It was urged that the necessity to plead the facts relating to the manner of investment, was not felt when the suit was filed, and on account of very denial by the petitioners herein, as to the receipt of amount, the necessity has arisen to summon the records from M/s. Shriram Investments Limited. It was urged that incorporation of the plea in relation to the manner, in which, the investment was made, at the instance of the petitioners herein, does not alter the nature of the suit, or cause of action therein.
4. The petitioners resisted the application, and pleaded that the proposed amendment would alter the very nature of the suit. It was also their case that the facts sought to be incorporated would bring about altogether a different cause of action. Through a common order, dated 27-8-2004, the trial Court allowed both the applications. Hence, these two civil revision petitions.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, submits that an application under Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC is impermissible having regard to the amendment to the said provision through Act 22 of 2002. Further contention is urged on merits of the case. It is pleaded that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit, and introduce a new cause of action.
6. Sri C. Raghu and Sri K. Maheswara Rao, the learned Counsel for the contesting parties, on the other hand, submit that the suit was filed before Act 22 of 2002 came into force, and by virtue of Section 16(2)(b) of that Act, bar for filing an application for amendment of pleadings, does not apply to it. They also submit that the effort of the first respondent is only to submit some additional material to the existing cause of action, and the same would not result in alteration of the nature of the suit.
7. It is not clear as to whether the suit was filed before 1-7-2002, or thereafter. Through Act 22 of 2002, the Parliament substantially restricted the scope for amendment of the pleadings, particularly once the trial of the suit had commenced. However, Section 16(2)(b) exempted the proceedings, which were not instituted before 1-7-2002, from the scope of amendment through the said Act. Inasmuch as there is some uncertainty as to the date of filing of the suit, it is proceeded as though the situation is covered by Section 16(2)(b). Therefore, the matter needs to be dealt with on merits.
8. The suit was filed with a specific plea that the petitioners emerged as prized subscribers in a chit series, and received the resultant amount. It was alleged that they failed to pay the stipulated instalments. The petitioners disputed their liability, and necessary issues were framed. Recording of evidence is said to have been closed.
9. The first respondent filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, with a prayer to amend the plaint. The purport of the amendment was that on the instructions of the petitioners herein, the chit amount was invested in the names of various persons in M/s. Shriram Investments Limited. The trial Court allowed the amendment.
10. The manner, in which, the amount was paid or invested, was fully in the knowledge of the first respondent. If it did not feel the necessity of pleading the details of investment or manner of payment, or it did not treat the said particulars, as constituting any cause of action, and treated them as mere details, they can certainly be adduced at the time of leading evidence. However, if the said facts are treated as constituting part of the cause of action, two questions arise. The first is that the agency with whom the investment was made must be impleaded as a party to the suit, and the second is that if the investment becomes an independent cause of action, or a substantial part of it, it is likely to alter the very nature of the suit. The facts pleaded through the applications, are such that they bring about a totally different cause of action, and alter the nature of the suit. A transaction, which is otherwise said to have been bilateral, is prone to become trilateral. It is impermissible to bring about such a change, through the mere process of amendment. Therefore, the amendment is impermissible in law.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 1206 of 2004 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is set aside, and accordingly, C.R.P. No. 6284 of 2004 is allowed. C.R.P. No. 293 of 2005 filed against I.A. No. 1205 of 2004 is dismissed, and it is left open to the first respondent herein to lead such evidence as is permissible in law, so long as it accords with the pleadings. No order as to costs.