Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gavi Matt Samsthanam vs Danda Narayana Swamy And Others on 17 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD596, 1999(6)ALT800, 1999 A I H C 4763, (1999) 5 ANDHLD 596 (1999) 6 ANDH LT 800, (1999) 6 ANDH LT 800
Author: C.V.N. Sastri
Bench: C.V.N. Sastri
JUDGMENT
1. Inspite of service of notices on them, the respondents have not chosen to appear either in person or through Counsel to oppose this Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. This revision is directed against the order passed by the lower Court refusing to permit the plaintiff to file, a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit. The suit is filed by Sri Gavi Mutt Samsthanam, Uravakonda, represented by its Manager for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents not to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit site. In the written statement filed by them the defendants have, inter alia, questioned the competence of the Manager of the plaintiff-mutt to file the suit. In the proposed rejoinder the plaintiff wanted to explain how the Manager is competent to institute the suit on behalf of the mutt and in what capacity the suit is filed by him. The plaintiff also wanted to rebut some of the allegations made by the defendants in their written statement touching the merits.
3. The lower Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff on the main ground that the petition is purported to be filed under Section 151 CPC and no specific provision is mentioned by the plaintiff for filing a rejoinder. The lower Court also observed that the application is belated as the suit has reached the stage of trial.
4. It is well settled that citing a wrong provision of law is not a valid ground for refusing to grant relief which can be otherwise granted in law. The lower Court should have seen that Order 8, Rule 9 CPC specifically provides for filing subsequent pleadings by any of the parties with the leave of the Court. Further Order 6, Rule i7 provides for amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. As the plaintiff merely wanted to explain in what capacity the suit is instituted and how the Manager of the mutt is competent to institute the suit on behalf of the mutt in answer to the objection raised by the defendants in the written statement, the lower Court ought not to have refused leave to the plaintiff to file a rejoinder/additional written statement as the same does not, in any way, cause prejudice to the defendants. The lower Court clearly acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in refusing such permission to the plaintiff. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and IA No. 166 of 1998 filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The fact that IA No.166 of 1998 is allowed does not mean that the pleas taken by the plaintiff therein are upheld. The tenability or otherwise of the said pleas is to be considered in the suit. The CRP is accordingly allowed. No costs.