AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J
This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.02.2013 made in I.A.No.818 of 2012 in O.S.No.355 of 2009 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Ongole, where under the Interlocutory Application was filed under Order VI, Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint to substitute the name of A.V.Subba Rao in the place of Arikatla Venkata Subbamma.
The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners/ plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the respondents/defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are arrayed to as they were arrayed before the lower Court.
The facts leading to the present revision petition are that, Arikatla China Venkaiah Chowdary Society (1st plaintiff) filed the suit represented by its Secretary and Correspondent by name Arikatla Venkata Subbamma (2nd plaintiff) for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 restraining them from constructing southern side wall, without following the rules and regulations. During pendency of the said suit, the present petition under challenge was filed stating that the 2nd plaintiff became aged and unable to conduct the functions of the Society and as such as per the resolution dt.24.03.2012 her son A.V.Subba Rao was elected as Secretary and Correspondent and hence the name of her son may be replaced with the name of her son in the entire plaint.
The respondents/defendants filed counter denying the averments of the petition-affidavit and contending that they raised a dispute regarding the 1st plaintiff-society and filed S.R.O.P. No.8 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Court, Ongole under Section 23 of Societies Registration Act and during pendency of the suit the general body meeting held on 24.03.2012 is illegal and invalid. Further, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.25556 of 2010 directed the District Registrar to receive the resolution from the plaintiff-society and place it in the record and hence the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of the orders of Writ Petition to use the resolution for other purpose.
No oral or documentary evidence was adduced before the trial Court.
On hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that when there is ambiguity regarding the resolution, until disposal of S.R.O.P.No. 8 of 2008, the Court cannot permit the petitioners to amend the plaint by removing the name of Arikatla Venkata Subbamma and to add the name of A.V.Subba Rao in her place.
Heard Sri Nalluri Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in coming to a finding that there is ambiguity in the resolution passed by the Society and misconstrued the order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.25556 of 2010. He further submitted that the S.R.O.P. No.8 of 2008 was disposed of in the year 2015 by dismissing the same and hence there is no obstruction in allowing the amendment sought for.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that by the time the impugned application was disposed of, the SROP was pending and hence there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. However, he submitted that he has no objection to allow the amendment sought for in the petition.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners across the Bench submitted that after disposal of S.R.O.P. No.8 of 2008 by dismissing the same, no appeal is filed challenging the order till now, for which the learned counsel for the respondents assented. It is not in dispute that initially the 2nd petitioner/plaintiff Arikatla Venkata Subbamma was the Secretary and correspondent of the 1st plaintiff-society and she filed the suit in the representative capacity and during pending of the said suit as well as S.R.O.P.No. 8 of 2008, a resolution was passed in the general body meeting held on 24.03.2012 electing the son of 2nd plaintiff by name A.V.Subba Rao as Secretary and correspondent of the 1st plaintiff-society as the 2nd petitioner/ plaintiff became aged and could not conduct the functions of the Society. The said resolution became operative from such date since nobody questioned the same before any Forum.
The objection raised by the respondents/defendants is that the present amendment ought to have sought for both in the suit as well as in the S.R.O.P., The finding of the trial Court is to the effect that during pendency of the S.R.O.P., the said resolution has no value at all and it is not acted upon and basing on such resolution the trial Court rejected the request of the petitioners.
Admittedly, S.R.O.P. No. 8 of 2008 is disposed of and no appeal is said to be pending against the orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Ongole.
In the light of the above discussion and in view of the consent given by the given by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no impediment to allow the amendment sought for, accordingly the order passed by the trial Court needs interference of this Court and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.818 of 2012 in O.S.No.355 of 2009, dated 13.02.2013 on the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Ongole. Consequently, the petition in I.A.No.818 of 2012 in O.S.No.355 of 2009 is allowed to substitute the name of A.V.Subba Rao in the place of Arikatla Venkata Subbamma in the entire plaint.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.