AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nyapathy Vijay, J
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 25.09.2023 in I.A.No.56 of 2021 in A.S.No.90 of 2018 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool,
The Petitioners are the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The Petitioners had filed the suit for declaration of title and for cancellation of Sale Deed relating to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property alleged to have been executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 on 30.07.2013 vide document No.1402/2013 and for consequential permanent injunction. The Defendants filed their written statement and the suit was dismissed on contest vide Judgment and Decree dated 04.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners filed appeal A.S.No.90 of 2018 before the District Appellate Court, Kurnool.
During pendency of the appeal, the Petitioners filed I.A.No.56 of 2021 seeking to amend the plaint by adding the relief of delivery of possession in the prayer portion of the plaint. This application was opposed by the Respondents/Defendants on the ground that it would not be permissible to seek for amendment at this stage. The further plea was with regard to Court Fee. The District Appellate Court vide impugned orders dismissed the application. Hence, the Revision.
Heard Sri B.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Kanakala Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents.
The counsel further contended that as the primary relief in the suit is for declaration and the amendment is only an amendment regarding consequential prayer only. It was contended that there is no amendment in the plaint pleadings. It is his further case that by virtue of the amendment, no further evidence is required and that the evidence on record is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner vide USR No.79715 dated 20.11.2024 stating that no further evidence would be required by virtue of the amendment.
The counsel for the Respondents contended that due diligence was not exercised by the Petitioners and at the appellate stage it would be impermissible to seek for amendment.
This court having heard the respective counsels opines as under:
The primary relief sought by the Petitioners in the suit was declaration of title and for cancellation of Sale Deed said to have been executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 pursuant to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The Defendants claimed the schedule property through an independent source of tile and claimed independent title to the schedule property. The amendment that is being sought by the Petitioners is only the consequential relief which is dependent on the Petitioners succeeding with regard to their claim for title over the scheduled property. As the amendment being a consequential relief, the same would not change the nature of the suit nor the Respondents can urge any prejudice considering the written statement.
The amendment would only enable the Courts to decide the dispute between the parties and the plea that the application was filed belatedly, cannot be a ground to deny amendment. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh (2009) 10 SCC 626 at paragraph 6 and the same is extracted below;
“6. It is also well settled that even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by costs or otherwise. (See B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai1.) Accordingly, we do not find any reason to hold that only because there was some delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint, such prayer for amendment cannot be allowed.”
In view of the above, the order of the District Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.