Or.6, rule 17 C.P.C - amendment of written statement /counter on subsequent events pending rent control appeal - lower court dismissed the same- High court held that admittedly he is on rent/lease and further Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended with the addition of the proviso. It prohibits amendment of the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences. In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at the stage of appeal. The learned Chief Judge took note of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that amendment at this stage is not permissible. Second and more important reason is that the proposed amendment does not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at all. Even if the execution of deed of settlement by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.= CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014 07-08-2014 Hazari Sanjay singh... PETITIONER S.Kondaiah and five others RESPONDENT = 2014 - Aug. Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11831

Or.6, rule 17 C.P.C - amendment of written statement /counter on subsequent events pending rent control appeal - lower court dismissed the same- High court held that admittedly he is on rent/lease and further  Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended with the addition of the proviso.  It prohibits amendment of the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences. In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at the stage of appeal.  The learned Chief Judge took note of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that  amendment at this stage is not permissible.  Second and more important reason is that the proposed amendment does not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at all.  Even if the execution of deed of settlement by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.=

The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is a
tenant of the respondents.  R.C No.83 of 2007 filed by
respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner was allowed and
the order of eviction was passed.  At the stage of appeal, the
petitioner wants to amend the counter filed in the R.C.

      Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended
with the addition of the proviso.  It prohibits amendment of
the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences.
In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at
the stage of appeal.  The learned Chief Judge took note of
Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that
amendment at this stage is not permissible.  Second and
more important reason is that the proposed amendment does
not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at
all.  Even if the execution of deed of settlement by
respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the
execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by
the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same
cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.

      As of now, the respondents did not part with their title
to the property.  Mere pendency of a suit for specific
performance filed by a third party against the respondents
cannot be a ground to resist the eviction proceedings.  Even
while admitting that he is the tenant of the respondents, the
petitioner is creating every possible trouble for the
respondents and is squatting on the property.  This Court
does not approve of the conduct of the petitioner.  The lower
appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and
no interference is warranted with the order under revision.

      The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed.

2014 - Aug. Month - http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=11831  

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014    

07-08-2014

Hazari Sanjay singh... PETITIONER

S.Kondaiah and five others RESPONDENT    

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Srinivas Emani

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014    

Dated:07-08-2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1509 OF 2014    

ORDER:


      Respondents 1 and 2 are spouses.  The petitioner is
their tenant.  Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S No. 562 of 2003
in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad for eviction of the petitioner.  In his written
statement, the petitioner admitted that he is a tenant of
respondents 1 and 2.  However, he raised the plea that the
rent is only Rs.600/- excluding electricity charges and in that
view of the matter, the suit is not maintainable.  The suit was
dismissed on 31-08-2006 accepting that plea.  Thereafter,
respondents 1 and 2 filed R.C No. 83 2007 against the
petitioner for eviction pleading the grounds of wilful default in
payment of rents, personal requirement and damage to the
premises.  During the pendency of the R.C, the 2nd
respondent died and the children of respondents 1 and 2 were
brought on record.  The RC was allowed and the order of
eviction was passed against the petitioner.  Thereupon, he
filed R.A No. 230 of 2010 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City
Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

      In the rent appeal, the petitioner filed I.A No. 34 of 2013
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit him to
amend the counter filed in R.C No. 83 of 2007.  He wanted to
plead that respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed a registered
settlement deed in favour of their sons and the latter in turn
executed an agreement of sale in favour of a third party.  It is
also alleged that O.S No.795 of 2011 was filed in the Court of
II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by the
persons in whose favour agreement of sale was executed.  The
petitioner wanted to incorporate these and other relevant
facts in the counter.  The application was opposed by the
respondents.  The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A
through order dated 11-04-2014.  Hence, the revision.

      Heard Sri Srinivas Emani, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondents.

      The petitioner did not dispute the fact that he is a
tenant of the respondents.  R.C No.83 of 2007 filed by
respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner was allowed and
the order of eviction was passed.  At the stage of appeal, the
petitioner wants to amend the counter filed in the R.C.

      Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was substantially amended
with the addition of the proviso.  It prohibits amendment of
the pleadings once the trial of a suit or petition commences.
In the instant case, the amendment is sought to be made at
the stage of appeal.  The learned Chief Judge took note of
Order VI Rule 17 CPC and expressed the view that 
amendment at this stage is not permissible.  Second and
more important reason is that the proposed amendment does  
not have any bearing upon the subject matter of the suit, at
all.  Even if the execution of deed of settlement by
respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 or the
execution of an agreement of sale in favour of third parties by
the children of respondents 1 and 2 is proved, the same
cannot be treated as relevant to the appeal.

      As of now, the respondents did not part with their title
to the property.  Mere pendency of a suit for specific
performance filed by a third party against the respondents
cannot be a ground to resist the eviction proceedings.  Even
while admitting that he is the tenant of the respondents, the
petitioner is creating every possible trouble for the
respondents and is squatting on the property.  This Court
does not approve of the conduct of the petitioner.  The lower
appellate Court has taken the correct view of the matter and
no interference is warranted with the order under revision.

      The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed.
        
   The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also
stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________    
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
07-08-2014

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.