HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3918 of 2014 Date : 6-12-2014 Between :
M. Krishna Rao (since died) per L.Rs.
M. Parvathi and others ..
Petitioners And G. Chandrakala and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondents : Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 17- 10-2014 in I.A.(SR) No.14567 of 2014 in O.S.No.91 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the counter claim by mentioning the valuation and court fees therein is rejected.
I have heard Mr. B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents.
This case has a chequered career. After considerable rounds of litigation, A.S.No.210 of 2011 filed by the petitioners was allowed and the case was remanded to the lower Court for fresh adjudication. It is not in dispute that the petitioners who are defendants in the suit have filed a written statement and also pleaded counter-claim which is made part of the written statement. However, the counter claim was not valued and Court fee was not paid thereon. The Courts which have dealt with the case proceeded on the premise that the counter claim was in existence. Indeed, by Judgment and decree dated 19-9-2008, the counter claim filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. By Judgment dated 17-9-2013 in A.S.No.210 of 2011, the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, has observed in para- 30 of the Judgment that the claim and counter claim of the parties have to be adjudicated. It is in this context that the petitioners’ request for amendment of the counter claim needs to be considered.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that during the lifetime of petitioner No.1, due to inadvertent and bonafide mistake, the counter claim was not valued and Court fee was not paid. While O.S.No.91 of 1997 filed by the respondents pertains to the relief of declaration that the decree obtained by the petitioners in O.S.No.468 of 1989 is null and void, in the counter claim, the relief sought by the petitioners is to declare that the decree obtained by the respondents in O.S.No.426 of 1990 is null and void.
In my considered opinion, as both the parties have been seriously contesting the litigation and both have obtained the respective decrees which are in conflict with each other, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioners are allowed to amend the counter claim in order to facilitate comprehensive adjudication of the dispute by the lower Court as to which of the two decrees is sustainable in law. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower Court is set aside. I.A.(SR) No.14567 of 2014 is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioners.
It is represented by Mr. Shyam Sundar Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have filed a transfer O.P.No.817 of 2014 making certain allegations against the learned Judge of the trial Court. Mr. B. Vijaysen Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that he will advise his clients to unconditionally withdraw the transfer O.P. and proceed with the suit before the lower Court.
In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The lower Court is directed to proceed with the suit immediately after the amendment of the counter claim and filing of further pleadings, if any, by the respondents to the counter claim and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.5345 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-12-2014 AM