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

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more