Telangana High Court
Syed Munawar Hussain vs Nazima Begum on 15 June, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.83 OF 2019
ORDER:
This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.233 of 2018 in O.S.No.575 of 2016 by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, wherein the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint i.e, to add the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.168 of 2013 etc., was dismissed.
2) Heard the arguments of Mr.Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, Mr.R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and perused the record.
3) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the respondents/defendants have filed the written statement on 01.08.2016 falsely claiming that defendant No.1 has purchased land in an extent of 26 sq.yards on 07.02.2013 under a registered sale deed but they did not mention the document number. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the document in question and immediately filed the subject Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the plaint to add the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 07.02.2013. Though delay was caused in filing the subject amendment application, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, it is necessary to amend the plaint as prayed for. The Court below 2 while dealing with the subject matter of the suit, erroneously dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application holding that trial has been commenced and the petitioner/plaintiff was not diligent in pursuing the remedy sought for. Learned counsel further submitted that in the given circumstances of the case, to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the amendment sought for is essential and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing the revision petition as prayed for.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would contend that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to explain as to why he did not file the amendment application immediately after filing of the written statement by the defendants on 01.08.2016. Already trail has been commenced in the subject suit, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. The subject Interlocutory Application is filed only to drag on the proceedings in the subject suit. As per the language employed in Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the petitioner/plaintiff ought to have sought the proposed amendment immediately after filing of the written statement, which he did not do so. There are clear laches on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below is justified in dismissing the subject Interlocutory Application assigning number of reasons and ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision petition.
5) In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point for determination is:
"Whether the subject Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the plaint, can be allowed as prayed for?"3
6) POINT: It is apt and appropriate to refer the decision in B.K.Narayana Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai & another1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice and that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties."
In Mahila Ramkali Devi and others vs. Nandram2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"Para 20: It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost."
7) Admittedly, the respondents/defendants filed the written statement in the subject suit on 01.08.2016, wherein the date of document in question i.e, registered sale deed was mentioned as 07.02.2013. The respondents/defendants did not file the said 1 (2000) 1 SCC 712 2 (2015) 13 SCC 132 4 document along with the written statement. It is the petitioner/ plaintiff who obtained the certified copy of the document in question dated 07.02.2013, on 21.01.2017 and filed the subject amendment application on 23.01.2018. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff that most of the time Presiding Officer of the Court below was not available. As seen from the aforementioned decisions, the rules of procedures are intended to be handmaid for the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. Admittedly, the subject suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The amendment sought for is to add the relief of declaration and consequential cancellation of sale deed dated 07.02.2013. Both parties are claiming title over the piece of land admeasuring 4.5 sq.yards. The real controversy would be addressed if a comprehensive suit is taken on file i.e, for declaration of title, perpetual injunction/recovery of possession as the case may be and cancellation of sale deed in question. Merely because the petitioner/plaintiff is not diligent in pursuing the remedy, no mala fides can be attributed to the petitioner/plaintiff and it is not appropriate to deny the relief sought by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there are no grave laches on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff. Furthermore to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, it is necessary and essential to have a comprehensive suit between the parties to the litigation. This aspect was overlooked by the Court below. Even if the subject Interlocutory Application is allowed, no injury, prejudice, harm or loss would be caused to the other side particularly, the 5 respondents/defendants. Furthermore, if the proposed amendments are allowed, it would avoid multiplicity of litigation and hardship to the parties to the suit. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is unsustainable and as such it is liable to set aside.
8) Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.233 of 2018 in O.S.No.575 of 2016 by the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.233 of 2018 is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 15th June, 2020 scs