Or. 6, Rule 17 C.P.C - Amendment of written statement by present secretary of an defendant organisation - erasing the admission made by previous secretary= PETITIONER RESPONDENT K.M. PRAVEENA, CHITTOOR DIST VS DAKSHINA BHARAT HINDI PRACHARA SAHBA, KHAIRATABAD = hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo=CRP&mno=861&year=2013

Or. 6, Rule 17 C.P.C - Amendment of written statement by present secretary of an defendant organisation - erasing the admission made by previous secretary on ground of misrepresentation - Allowed - Confirmed by High court  =
Whether the present secretary can file an amendment petition against the admissions made in written statement ,on the plea of fraud done by earlier management  ? - Yes
Dhananjayudu  misguided his successor S.K.Halemani and thereby he filed the written statement admitting the suit claim and pleaded time for payment. 
In this connection, the said S.K.Halemani gave sworn affidavit to that effect. 
Therefore, there is a semblance of right to defend the organization by the present secretary, who filed sworn affidavit. 
He is properly elected Secretary or not is a question of fact to be decided in the suit itself. 
So, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the plea that the pronote is not supported by consideration and  said amendment cannot cause any prejudice to the right of the plaintiff. 
The plea taken by the defendant by virtue of this amendment has to be  established by adducing necessary evidence in the trial court. Therefore, giving an opportunity to the respondent herein would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner herein. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

6.      Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

CRP 861 / 2013

CRPSR 4837 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
K.M. PRAVEENA, CHITTOOR DIST  VSDAKSHINA BHARAT HINDI PRACHARA SAHBA, KHAIRATABAD
PET.ADV. : CHANDRAIH NAIDURESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227DISTRICT:  CHITTOOR



HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.861 of 2013


ORDER:


This revision is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the order dated 05.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.1385 of 2012 in O.S.No.50 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi.

2.      The  respondent herein filed 
I.A.No.1385 of 2012 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., to amend the written statement on the ground that the then Secretary, by name, S.Dhananjeyudu, has got filed a written statement through his successor S.K.Halemani admitting the suit claim and pleaded time for repayment and after verification of the records, the present application was filed praying to amend the written statement to safeguard the interest of the petitioner’s organization and that the sworn affidavit of S.K.Halemani has also filed. 
It is further averred that the present suit was brought into existence by S.Dhananjeyudu, the then Secretary to the petitioner’s organization and that the petitioner’s organization has filed a complaint before     P.S. Central Crime Station and it was registered as F.I.R. No.303 of 2009 against the then Secretary S.Dhananjeyudu under Sections 203, 406 and 420 IPC, and in the said crime, the present suit transactions were also mentioned and the said criminal cases are pending. 
When these events had taken place, it came to light that the suit was brought into existence with the collusion of the then Secretary Dhananjayudu with  an intention to enrich himself  by swallowing the funds. 
The said petition was allowed. 
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3.      The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no material filed  to show that the present Secretary is authorized person of petitioner’s organization, that once an admission is made by the defendant, it cannot be recalled and therefore, entertaining the application is nothing but abuse of process of court that too at the stage of arguments.

4.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plaintiff has not paid the consideration based on the pronote and that the defendant is not liable to pay that amount as the successor of S.Dhananjeyudu played fraud on the organization. That certain facts came into existence in view of the registration of the crime against the previous Secretary S.Dhananjeyudu for the offence punishable under Sections  203, 406 and 420 IPC and therefore, the lower court rightly allowed the petition.

5.      The contention of the defendant is that Dhananjayudu  misguided his successor S.K.Halemani and thereby he filed the written statement admitting the suit claim and pleaded time for payment. 
In this connection, the said S.K.Halemani gave sworn affidavit to that effect. 
Therefore, there is a semblance of right to defend the organization by the present secretary, who filed sworn affidavit. 
He is properly elected Secretary or not is a question of fact to be decided in the suit itself. 
So, therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the plea that the pronote is not supported by consideration and  said amendment cannot cause any prejudice to the right of the plaintiff. 
The plea taken by the defendant by virtue of this amendment has to be  established by adducing necessary evidence in the trial court. Therefore, giving an opportunity to the respondent herein would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner herein. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

6.      Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7.      Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed. 

_______________________
JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
April, 04, 2013
KKK/PN






                              HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU





                                                               













                                             
















CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.861 of 2013
 


                                                                               

April, 04, 2013

KKM/PN

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.