Or. 6, rule 17 C.P.C - amendment of plaint = For each and every thing amendment of plaint not necessary when it is pleaded that she is lawful owner whether it is by way of sale deed, or gift deed or by inheritance can be covered by way of adducing evidence = SMT. AYESHA RIZWANA, HYD VS MUSHTAQ AHMED, HYD= PUblished in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/crp/crp_155_2013.html

Or. 6, rule 17 C.P.C - amendment of plaint = For each and every thing amendment of plaint not necessary when it is pleaded that she is lawful owner whether it is by way of sale deed, or gift deed or by inheritance can be covered by way of adducing evidence  =

once the petitioner has asserted that she is the lawful owner of the said property, it is for the petitioner to establish her ownership over the said property whether by way of registered settlement deed or sale or gift or by succession, and by all means, she can establish her ownership.  Merely because she has not stated in the plaint  that she became owner by virtue of the release deed, it can not be said that the petitioner would be precluded from leading evidence.

CRP 155 / 2013

CRPSR 841 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT SMT. AYESHA RIZWANA, HYD   VS MUSHTAQ AHMED, HYD PET.ADV. : MOHAMMAD ADNAN RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

C.R.P.No.155 of 2013

24.1.2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

C.R.P.No.155 of 2013

Date: 24.1.2013

Between:

Smt.Ayesha Rizwana                                                .. Petitioner

And

Mushtaq Ahmed

.. Respondent

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH

C.R.P.No.155 of 2013

ORAL ORDER:

          This Revision is filed  by the petitioner aggrieved by the  order made in I.A.No.843 of 2012 in O.S.No.4163 of 2010 dated 21.11.2012 on the file of  III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed under Order VI Rule 7 of CPC to amend the plaint was dismissed.

           The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed suit O.S.No.4163 of 2010 against the respondent-defendant for recovery of mesne profits based on the title over the suit schedule property.  After filing the suit, the petitioner filed the present I.A. seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating the following:

      “That the plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered release deed vide document No.2246 of 1992 and she has been regularly paying property tax and electricity charges”.

After considering the matter, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. by impugned order.  Questioning the same, the present C.R.P. is filed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and other material available on record, I am of the view that once the petitioner has asserted that she is the lawful owner of the said property, it is for the petitioner to establish her ownership over the said property whether by way of registered settlement deed or sale or gift or by succession, and by all means, she can establish her ownership.  Merely because she has not stated in the plaint  that she became owner by virtue of the release deed, it can not be said that the petitioner would be precluded from leading evidence.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the plaint stating that she became the owner by virtue of the registered release deed is immaterial as she is always free to lead evidence to establish her ownership over the suit schedule property.

Subject to the above observation, the revision is dismissed at the stage of admission.  As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, stands dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.     

      

                                                           ________________

                                                            V. ESWARAIAH, J

Date: 24.1.2013

DA/VVR

                      

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

(  my note = except Will Deed  )

or7rule14cpcnoamountofevidenceisallowedtobeadducedwithoutpleadingsdocumentpetitionforreceivingawilldeedwithoutpleadingswasrightlyrejectedbylowercourtmakamsubbarayuduvsmakambalasubbaiah4otherpublishedinhttphcapnicincsismaininfojspmtypecrpmno1811year2013
http://advocatemmmohanlaw.blogspot.in/2013/11/or-7-rule-14-cpc-no-amount-of-evidence.html