THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1894 of 2012 Between: M.Ravinder Reddy And Dated 15th October, 2014 …Petitioner M.Narsimha Reddy and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Bankat Lal Mandhani Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri M.Rajender Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri K.Laxman Rao Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri G.Anandam The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 14.03.2012, in I.A.No.26 of 2012 in O.S.No.36 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad.
The petitioner filed the above-mentioned suit for partition. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he is the son of respondent No.1 through his second wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No.1 through his first wife. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement on 08.09.2006 denying the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1.
After commencement of the trial, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.26 of 2012 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and the suit schedule by including the property in Survey No.64. In support of this application, the petitioner averred that in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, they have taken the plea that there was a prior partition under a decree passed by the Court in O.S.No.13 of 1986. The petitioner further averred that he has obtained certified copies of the documents in the said suit, a perusal of which revealed that the family possesses land in Survey No.64 also and as he had no knowledge of the said fact, it is necessary to include the said property in the plaint.
The lower Court by the order under revision dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not diligent in filing the application for amendment.
I have heard Sri Bankat Lal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
In the written statement filed on 08.09.2006, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not given the details of the properties except averring that the properties were already partitioned under the decree passed in O.S.No.13 of 1986. Therefore, from the written statement itself, there was no scope for the petitioner to come to know about the existence of property in Survey No.64. No doubt, the petitioner should have displayed more diligence in obtaining certified copies of the documents in O.S.No.13 of 2006 within a reasonable time after respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the written statement. It is only in the year 2011 that he is stated to have obtained those copies and immediately thereafter filed the present application.
It is trite that a partition suit needs to be adjudicated in a comprehensive manner. If any family property is left out from the suit, it may lead to further litigation. Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, discretion is vested in the Court to permit amendment of the pleadings. Such discretion needs to be exercised on sound lines. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that denial of amendment to the petitioner would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the order of the lower Court is set aside and I.A.No.26 of 2012 is allowed, however, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to respondent Nos.1 to 3 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequent on the amendment of the plaint schedule, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to file additional written statement, if any. The lower Court shall allow both the parties to adduce oral evidence and dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2548 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th October, 2014
VGB