About Me

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

Thursday, August 7, 2014

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.