Or. 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. - Pleadings cannot be amended after the defence counsel has completed his arguments -There should be a stage for amending the pleadings. Pleadings cannot be amended after the defence counsel has completed his arguments. If the pleadings are now allowed to be amended by one party, the opposite party will have to re-frame its defence. It will have to lead evidence afresh and this is one kind of tactics to keep the issue pending rather than allow the same to be decided. Therefore, the prejudice that will be caused to the opposite party is writ large on the record. No separate prejudice need be demonstrated when an attempt is made to get the pleadings amended after the opposite party has concluded his arguments also. = C.R.P.NO.3443 OF 2013 07-08-2014 Chappidi Satyanarayanamma and another..... Appellants. Chappidi Dhanalakshmi and 2 others......RESPONDENTS = 2014 –Aug. Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/ filename=11602

Or. 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. - Pleadings cannot be amended after the defence counsel has
completed his arguments -There should be a stage for amending the pleadings. Pleadings cannot be amended after the defence counsel has completed his arguments.  If the pleadings are now allowed to be amended by one party, the opposite party will have to re-frame its defence.  It will have to lead evidence afresh and this is one kind of tactics to keep the issue pending rather than allow the same to be decided. Therefore, the prejudice that will be caused to the opposite party is writ large on the record.  No separate prejudice need be demonstrated when an attempt is made to get the pleadings amended after the opposite party has concluded his arguments also. =

Seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property with regard to
the Revenue Survey Number and also three out of four boundaries
of the plaint schedule property.  I.A.No.216 of 2013 was opposed
by the petitioners herein.  They have specifically asserted that
pleadings have been amended in the past and the 2nd defendant in
the Suit has been examined as D.W-1 and he has been subjected to 
extensive cross-examination with regard to the plaint schedule
property and during the course of arguments also, it was debated
with regard to the identity of the suit schedule property.
Therefore, the suit schedule property squarely was in dispute and
was a contentious issue.  Therefore, the plaintiffs should have
taken adequate care.  At any rate, the plaintiffs cannot realize the
mistake committed by them after the arguments of the defendants
were also over.  Unfortunately, the learned Judge allowed the I.A.,=

There should be a stage for amending the pleadings.
Pleadings cannot be amended after the defence counsel has
completed his arguments.  If the pleadings are now allowed to be
amended by one party, the opposite party will have to re-frame its
defence.  It will have to lead evidence afresh and this is one kind
of tactics to keep the issue pending rather than allow the same to
be decided.
      Therefore, the prejudice that will be caused to the opposite
party is writ large on the record.  No separate prejudice need be
demonstrated when an attempt is made to get the pleadings
amended after the opposite party has concluded his arguments
also.
      Therefore, this Revision is allowed


2014 –Aug. Part - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/ filename=11602

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE  NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

C.R.P.NO.3443 OF 2013  

07-08-2014


Chappidi Satyanarayanamma and another..... Appellants.

Chappidi Dhanalakshmi and 2 others......RESPONDENTS    

For the Appellants:  G. Simhadri.

For the Respondents: Mr.T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            



O R D E R:

      This Revision is preferred against the Order passed on
05-07-2013 in I.A.No.216 of 2013 in O.S.No.28 of 2011.  The
petitioners in this Revision are the defendants, while Respondents
1 to 3 are the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs instituted the Suit seeking
declaration of their title over the plaint schedule property.  It
appears that after the evidence was closed on both sides,
arguments were heard on both sides and it is asserted that the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs has taken time to submit his reply
arguments and at that stage I.A.No.216 of 2013 has been filed
seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property with regard to
the Revenue Survey Number and also three out of four boundaries
of the plaint schedule property.  I.A.No.216 of 2013 was opposed
by the petitioners herein.  They have specifically asserted that
pleadings have been amended in the past and the 2nd defendant in
the Suit has been examined as D.W-1 and he has been subjected to
extensive cross-examination with regard to the plaint schedule
property and during the course of arguments also, it was debated
with regard to the identity of the suit schedule property.
Therefore, the suit schedule property squarely was in dispute and
was a contentious issue.  Therefore, the plaintiffs should have
taken adequate care.  At any rate, the plaintiffs cannot realize the
mistake committed by them after the arguments of the defendants
were also over.  Unfortunately, the learned Judge allowed the I.A.,
on the precious ground that the defendants could not make out a
case of any forceable prejudice that would occur to their case if
the amendment application is allowed.  I am afraid, that cannot be
the test that should be applied in a matter of this nature.
      The Suit is instituted in the year 2001 and from 2010
onwards, it is undergoing adjournments on one pretext or the
other.  I am horrified to look at the certified copy of the docket
sheet of the Suit produced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, wherefrom the entries started on 12-04-2010 disclosing
that the Suit is coming for arguments.  The cool four-year period
has just elapsed because of the laxity exercised by the Court in
this regard.  It is salutary that as soon as evidence is over on both
sides, prompt and necessary steps should be taken for completing
the hearing, as, otherwise, the very advantage of participating
effectively during the course of trial would be lost.
      There should be a stage for amending the pleadings.
Pleadings cannot be amended after the defence counsel has
completed his arguments.  If the pleadings are now allowed to be
amended by one party, the opposite party will have to re-frame its
defence.  It will have to lead evidence afresh and this is one kind
of tactics to keep the issue pending rather than allow the same to
be decided.
      Therefore, the prejudice that will be caused to the opposite
party is writ large on the record.  No separate prejudice need be
demonstrated when an attempt is made to get the pleadings
amended after the opposite party has concluded his arguments
also.
      Therefore, this Revision is allowed, but however, the costs
imposed by the trial Court on the plaintiffs is retained and they
will abide by the result in the Suit.
      The learned Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram, East
Godavari District, is directed to dispose of the Suit after hearing
both sides, latest by 31-07-2014.
_________________________  
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.      
07.07.2014.

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.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.