Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Raparthy Pandu vs 1.Raparthy Vajramma W/O. Raparthy ... on 21 August, 2014
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2562 of 2013 21-08-2014 Raparthy Pandu PETITIONER 1.Raparthy Vajramma W/o. Raparthy Pandu, R/o. Tallagadda area of Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner :: Sri M. Rama Rao Counsel for Respondents: <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2562 of 2013 ORDER:
This revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, dismissing I.A.No.424 of 2011 in O.S.No.133 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.
2. The facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present civil revision petition, are as infra:
i) Petitioner instituted O.S.No.133 of 2009 against the respondents herein before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, seeking the following reliefs:
a) To cancel the gift settlement deed No.4607/2006, dated 27.10.2006 and registered sale-deed No.6018/2009, dated 26.08.2009, registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet.
b) To restrain the defendant No.3 from alienating the suit schedule land to others by way of gift, sale, mortgage or otherwise, till disposal of the suit.
c) Costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff.
d) Any other relief which the Honble Court deems just in the interest of justice to award may also be awarded to the plaintiffs.
ii) The defendants/respondents filed a written statement resisting the suit. In the said suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed I.A.No.424 of 2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking amendments to the plaint and the defendants/respondents filed a counter, opposing the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by virtue of an order dated 22.03.2013, dismissed the said application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.
3. Calling in question, the validity and the legal acceptability of the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.
4. Heard Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, apart from perusing the material available on record. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the absence of the counsel before the Court below, the Court below had no occasion to properly consider the issue. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the plaintiff/petitioner underwent operation as such he could not attend the Court. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the proposed amendments would not change the nature of the suit and in fact, the same are essential for complete adjudication of lis between the parties to the litigation.
6. In the above back ground, now the questions, which arise for consideration of this Court are whether the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is sustainable and tenable, and whether the same requires any correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. As per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., the courts are authorised to permit the parties to the litigation to alter or amend the pleadings. The said provisions of law also obligate the courts to allow the amendments, which would be necessary and essential for the purpose of determining or resolving the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is a settled law that the procedural aspects are handmaid of justice and are intended for advancement of justice and not to penalise the parties. Though the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, in view of the language employed, the approach of the Courts is required to be liberal but not hyper technical. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C are meant and intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating the same. The object of Rule 17 of Order 6 is that the Courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and allow all amendments which would be essential for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the same do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
8. The validity and legal acceptability of the impugned order and the reasons assigned therein are required to be examined and tested in the light of the above principles. The petitioner (plaintiff) initially instituted the suit against the respondents seeking the following reliefs
e) To cancel the gift settlement deed No.4607/2006, dated 27.10.2006 and registered sale-deed No.6018/2009, dated 26.08.2009, registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet.
f) To restrain the defendant No.3 from alienating the suit schedule land to others by way of gift, sale, mortgage or otherwise, till disposal of the suit.
g) Costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff.
h) Any other relief which the Honble Court deems just in the interest of justice to award may also be awarded to the plaintiffs.
9. The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.1.20 gts., of dry land situated in Sy.No.188/a of Pillalamarry village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District. The defendants/respondents filed a written statement, resisting the plaint averments in the month of December 2009. Admittedly, the trial of the suit has not yet commenced. The defendants 1 and 2 are the wife and the son of the plaintiff. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that he purchased the schedule property nominally in the name of the 1st defendant, who without the consent of the plaintiff gifted the same to the 2nd defendant by way of a gift settlement deed dated 27.10.2006 and the 2nd defendant sold the same in favour of the 3rd defendant by way of a sale deed dated 26.08.2009 and taking advantage of the same the 3rd defendant is trying to alienate the property by executing nominal documents in favour of his friends and relatives. As per the plaintiff, he came to know of these transactions in July, 2009. It is the case of the defendants in their written statement filed in December 2009 that the subject lands are Pasupu Kumkuma properties of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek cancellation and injunction, since he is not a party to any of the documents.
10. In the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present I.A.No.424 of 2011 on 17.08.2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., seeking amendments. The respondents filed a counter, resisting the same. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by way of the impugned order, rejected the said application. A perusal of the said order shows that the learned Judge did not independently analyse the legal and factual situation except endorsing the arguments and the contentions of the defendants. It is also to be noted that the learned Senior Civil Judge failed to discuss as to under what provisions of law the claim of the plaintiff would be barred and impermissible, and as to how the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and as to the extent of the applicability of the provisions of the Benami Prohibition Act.
11. From a reading of the impugned order it would be manifestly evident that the learned Senior Civil Judge, did not assign any cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting the proposed amendments. In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the Court below for fresh consideration by setting aside the impugned order.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District in I.A.No.424 of 2011 in O.S.No.133 of 2009, and the said I.A. is restored and the matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration, after hearing all the stake holders. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
21st August, 2014