HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.4330, 4337, 4342, 4343, 4344 and 4345 of 2013 Date : 27-12-2014 C.R.P.No.4330/2013 Between :
Desham Sahadev and another .. Petitioners And Dilawar Ali Khan and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Mr. Ch. Siva Reddy Counsel for respondents : Mr. Vijay B. Paropakari The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of identical suits filed by different parties against common defendants.
The suits were originally filed for permanent injunction. However, during the pendency of the suits, the petitioners have come out with separate applications under Order VI Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaints for seeking declaration of title and delivery of possession in place of permanent injunction. By separate, but identical orders passed by the lower Court, these applications have been dismissed.
The main ground on which the lower Court has dismissed these applications is that the pleadings in the applications are not specific, in the sense that, there is no indication as to which part of the plaint is sought to be amended. On a careful perusal of the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the applications, I am in agreement with the reasons given by the lower Court. Apart from the fact that the averments in the affidavit are too vague, even in the applications, the petitioners have not indicated whether the plaints require to be amended in respect of cause of action, valuation and prayer either by deletion, addition or substitution.
In Gurdial Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja[1] the Apex Court has noticed the disturbing trend in filing vague applications and the courts allowing such applications. It has inter alia observed at para-13 as under:
“Before parting we feel inclined to make certain observations about the loose practice prevalent in subordinate Courts in entertaining and dealing with applications for amendment of pleadings. It is a disturbing feature and, if such practice continues, it is likely to thwart the course of justice. The application moved by the occupants for amendment in their written statement filed earlier did not specifically set out which portions of the original pleadings were sought to be deleted and what were the averments which were sought to be added or substituted in the original pleadings. What the amendment applicants did was to give in their applications a vague idea of the nature of the intended amendment and then annex a new written statement with the application to be substituted in place of the original written statement. Such a course is strange and unknown to the procedure of amendment of pleadings. A pleading, once filed, is a part of the record of the Court and cannot be touched, modified, substituted, amended or withdrawn except by the leave of the court. Order 8, Rule 9 of CPC prohibits any pleadings subsequent to the written statement of a defendant being filed other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. Section 153 of CPC entitled “General power to amend” provides that the Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC confers a discretionary jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The rule goes on to provide that all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Unless and until the court is told how and in what manner the pleading originally submitted to the Court is proposed to be altered or amended, the Court cannot effectively exercise its power to permit amendment. An amendment may involve withdrawal of an admission previously made may attempt to introduce a plea or claim barred by limitation, or, may be so advised as to deprive the opposite party of a valuable right accrued to him by lapse of time and so on. It is, therefore, necessary for an amendment applicant to set out specifically in his application, seeking leave of the Court for amendment in the pleadings, as to what is proposed to be omitted from or altered or substituted in or added to the original pleadings.” (Emphasis added) On a careful consideration of the proposed pleadings, I am of the opinion that the lower Court was justified in dismissing the applications.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, CRPMP Nos.5896, 5906, 5913, 5914, 5915 and 5917 of 2013, filed in the respective Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 27-12-2014 AM
[1] AIR 2002 S.C. 1003