Or.VI, rule 17 C.P.C.- trial completed - in the midst of the arguments - filed petition for amendment of plaint to claim the relief of declaration of title and also for the relief of correction of record of rights in favour of the petitioners - Trail declined as highly belated - their lordships of Telangan held that They have slept over various stages for a period of ten years and leisurely filed the application for amendment after completion of the trial and more than one year after commencement of the arguments. These facts would clinchingly establish that the mandatory requirement of satisfying the Court, that despite due diligence, they could not have filed the application for amendment earlier, has not been satisfied by the petitioners. The lower Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the application. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. - 2015 Telangana msklawreports



After completion of trial,
the case underwent several adjournments for arguments. While 
so, in the midst of the arguments, the petitioners filed I.A.No.296
of 2014 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint to claim the
relief of declaration of title and also for the relief of correction
of record of rights in favour of the petitioners.
As rightly observed by the lower Court, since the
respondents have been strongly asserting their title over the suit
schedule property, the petitioners should have claimed the relief
of declaration of title in the beginning itself. Even if for any
reason there was a bona fide lapse on the part of the petitioners
to claim such a relief initially, at least after the entries in the
revenue record were altered in favour of the respondents in the
year 2005-06, they should have come out with the application
for amendment.

     It appears Exs.B-6 to B-17 were marked as far back as the
year 2012. At least within a reasonable time of marking those
documents, the petitioners should have filed the application for
amendment. They have slept over various stages for a period of
ten years and leisurely filed the application for amendment after
completion of the trial and more than one year after
commencement of the arguments. These facts would clinchingly
establish that the mandatory requirement of satisfying the
Court, that despite due diligence, they could not have filed the
application for amendment earlier, has not been satisfied by the
petitioners. The lower Court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the
application. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
order of the lower Court. - 2015 Telangana 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

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

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)