Telangana High Court
Mohd. Habeeburrahaman Sajid vs Balamani on 6 January, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3519 of 2018
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 15.02.2018, passed in I.A.No.279 of 2015 in O.S.No.82 of 2015, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, whereby, the petition filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice to permit him to carry out the amendment in the schedule of property portion in the plaint, was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the impugned order is erroneous. Trial has not been commenced in the subject suit. The revision petitioner/plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, vide document No.176/2010, dated 17.12.2009. The eastern side boundary and the northern side boundary of the suit schedule property are wrongly mentioned in the plaint, so also the survey number. The vendors of the revision petitioner/plaintiff did not come forward to execute and register a rectification deed. The proposed amendment is necessary. The Court below ought to have allowed the subject interlocutory application and ultimately prayed to set aside the 2 Dr.SA, J CRP No.3519/2018 order under challenge and allow the subject interlocutory application as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would contend that the Court below is justified in passing the impugned order. The subject interlocutory application is filed at a belated stage. The application filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff seeking interim injunction was dismissed by the Court below. Further, the revision petitioner/plaintiff did not obtain Rectification Deed from his vendors to incorporate the proposed amendment in the plaint. Further, the respondents/ defendants have also challenged the genuineness and binding nature of the registered sale deed obtained by the revision petitioner/plaintiff and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
5. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:
"Whether the order, dated 15.02.2018, passed in I.A.No.279 of 2015 in O.S.No.82 of 2015, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, is liable to be set aside?"
6. It has been contended by both the sides that trail has not been commenced in the subject suit in O.S.No.82 of 2015. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC reads as follows:
17. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be 3 Dr.SA, J CRP No.3519/2018 necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
7. As per the mandate given under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party, to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms, as may be just. Further, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has been commenced, provided certain conditions are fulfilled. In the instant case, the subject suit is filed for perpetual injunction. It is the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff that his vendor did not come forward to rectify the suit survey number as well as the eastern and northern side boundaries of the suit schedule property mentioned in the registered sale deed, vide document No.176/2010, dated 17.12.2009. The Court below, in the impugned order, held that the revision petitioner/plaintiff ought to have obtained rectification deed and thereafter filed an application for proposed amendment. Further, it held that the subject interlocutory application was filed belatedly to enforce the self declaration of correct boundaries by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The reason assigned by the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that his vendors did not come forward with a rectification deed to rectify the boundaries and survey numbers in the registered sale deed obtained by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The question that falls for determination in the subject suit would be as to what is the exact property 4 Dr.SA, J CRP No.3519/2018 purchased by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, under the registered document No.176/2010, dated 17.12.2009 and what are the correct boundaries of the land purchased by him. Merely because the rectification deed is not obtained by the revision petitioner/plaintiff from his vendors, his right to amend the boundaries of the suit schedule property cannot be denied, as long as the said amendment would not materially alter the nature of the subject suit. A simple correction to the boundaries and survey number from 215/E to 215/AA in the suit schedule property is sought by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The said amendment neither alters the nature of the subject suit nor converts the suit for perpetual injunction into a suit of different character. The amendment sought is necessary for just, effective and complete adjudication of the subject matter of the suit. In the given circumstances, the Court below ought to have allowed the amendment sought by revision petitioner/plaintiff by allowing the subject interlocutory application. The submissions made on behalf of the respondents/defendants do not merit consideration. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 15.02.2018, passed in I.A.No.279 of 2015 in O.S.No.82 of 2015, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, is set aside. Consequently, the subject I.A.No.279 of 2015 stands allowed, amending the boundaries of the suit schedule property as NORTH: Ramakrishna Rao and others land and EAST: Road to 5 Dr.SA, J CRP No.3519/2018 Choulapally Village, as prayed for, so also the survey number 215/E to 215/AA.
9. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 06th January, 2020 Bvv