Or.6, Rule 17 of C.P.C - In view of the proviso contained under Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C, the application moved by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint averments after Trial was concluded - the Trial Court has rightly rejected = The learned Advocate Commissioner filed report before the Trial Court setting out that the boundaries to the plaint schedule land are not tallying with the ground realities and hence, returned the warrant. At this stage, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.177 of 2012 on 03.02.2012 seeking amendment of the plaint. This I.A.No.177 of 2012 has been closed by the Court preserving liberty to seek amendment later on. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice that in the written statement filed in the suit, the defendants have disputed the correctness of the plaint schedule and the rough plan annexed to the plaint During the course of cross- examination, his attention has been drawn to the discrepancies with regard to the plaint averments, the plaint plan and the rough sketch annexed to the plaint. Chief affidavit of D.W.1 was filed into the Court on 25.02.2014 and D.W.1 was cross-examined on 12.03.2014. Thereafter, the suit was posed for arguments. At that stage, I.A.No.285 of 2014 is moved on 05.05.2014 seeking amendment of the plaint. It is this application which is opposed by the opposite side setting out that the said application is moved at a time when the suit is coming up for arguments and hence, it cannot be allowed. The defendants have also urged that the plaintiff is now seeking to fill up the gaps in her evidence and the plaintiff was not diligent at all. The defendants disputed the bonafidees behind the amendment. Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C, as stood amended by the Amending Act, 2002, reads as under: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties; Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. whether the petitioner/plaintiff herein is diligent enough or not. Previous amendment petition - That I.A was closed by theCourt granting liberty for taking out such an application at a later point of time. Thereafter, without availing the said liberty, petitioner/plaintiff proceeded with the trial of the suit. In view of the proviso contained under Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint averments after Trial was concluded. Amendment if permitted at this stage, would cause grave hardship to the defendants. They perhaps, will have to reframe their defense and in such an event, evidence will have to be lead in by both parties all over once again. As it is more than seven years time has elapsed from the date the suit is instituted. Thus, looked at from any angle the amendment cannot be allowed at a belated stage. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Or.6, Rule 17 of C.P.C - In view of the proviso contained under Rule 17 of Order VI of
C.P.C,  the application moved by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint averments after Trial was concluded - the Trial Court has rightly rejected = 

The
learned Advocate Commissioner filed report before the Trial Court
setting out that the boundaries to the plaint schedule land are not
tallying with the ground realities and hence, returned the warrant.
At this stage, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.177 of 2012 on
03.02.2012 seeking amendment of the plaint. This I.A.No.177 of
2012 has been closed by the Court preserving liberty to seek
amendment later on. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice that
in the written statement filed in the suit, the defendants have
disputed the correctness of the plaint schedule and the rough plan
annexed to the plaint
 During the course of cross-
examination, his attention has been drawn to the discrepancies
with regard to the plaint averments, the plaint plan and the rough
sketch annexed to the plaint. Chief affidavit of D.W.1 was filed into
the Court on 25.02.2014 and D.W.1 was cross-examined on   
12.03.2014.  Thereafter, the suit was posed for arguments. At that
stage, I.A.No.285 of 2014 is moved on 05.05.2014 seeking
amendment of the plaint. It is this application which is opposed by
the opposite side setting out that the said application is moved at a
time when the suit is coming up for arguments and hence, it
cannot be allowed. The defendants have also urged that the
plaintiff is now seeking to fill up the gaps in her evidence and the
plaintiff was not diligent at all. The defendants disputed the
bonafidees behind the amendment.  

Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C, as stood amended by the Amending
Act, 2002, reads as under:

       The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow
either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and
on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall 
be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the 
real questions in controversy between the parties;
       Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes
to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could
not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
whether the
petitioner/plaintiff herein is diligent enough or not.

Previous amendment petition - That I.A was closed by theCourt granting liberty for taking out such an application at a later
point of time. Thereafter, without availing the said liberty,
petitioner/plaintiff proceeded with the trial of the suit.

In view of the proviso contained under Rule 17 of Order VI of
C.P.C, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application moved by
the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint averments after Trial
was concluded. Amendment if permitted at this stage, would cause 
grave hardship to the defendants. They perhaps, will have to
reframe their defense and in such an event, evidence will have to
be lead in by both parties all over once again. As it is more than
seven years time has elapsed from the date the suit is instituted.
Thus, looked at from any angle the amendment cannot be allowed 
at a belated stage. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS