The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.251 of 2014
Dated 24.07.2014
Between:
1.M/s.Solid Finance Limited, Hyderabad and another.
…Petitioners And 1.S.Narasimha Reddy and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mrs.Manjiri S.Ganu Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr.Srinivas Mallampalli Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: -----
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 09-12-2013, in IA.No.745 of 2012 in OS.No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
For convenience, the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.
The plaintiff, who is respondent No.1 herein, filed the above-mentioned suit against the defendants, who are the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,53,000/-, which include principal amount of Rs.18 lakhs and interest from 01-04-2006 to 15-12- 2006 @ 12% p.a. In the suit, the plaintiff has shown the address of defendant No.1 as ‘Plot No.B-2/15, Mayur Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad’.
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a written statement denying their liability. Later, they have also filed IA.No.177 of 2010 for amendment of the written statement by incorporating Para 15A wherein it is inter alia stated that the plaintiff has purposely shown the residential address of defendant No.2 as the address of defendant No.1- Company; that at the time of the plaintiff obtaining loan, the registered office of defendant No.1 was situated at Hyderguda, Hyderabad; and that from 1996 onwards, its address was changed. The said application was allowed by the lower Court by Order, dated 08-02-2011.
Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed IA.No.745 of 2012 for further amendment of the written statement by incorporating the following sentence in Para 15A thereof:
“It is submitted that the Registered office address of defendant No.1 is a follows: Plot No.B-2/15, Mayur Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016”
The said application was dismissed by the lower Court. Aggrieved thereby, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties and perused the record.
In the affidavit, filed in support of IA.No.177 of 2010, defendant No.1 averred that as the suit property is not situated within the jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District Court, it may be permitted to amend the written statement by adding Para 15A as under:
“Para 15A: It is submitted that the Registered address of Defendant No.1 i.e. Petitioner No.1 herein is as mentioned in the cause title above. The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff has purposefully given the residential address of Respondent No.2 herein as the address of the Respondent No.1- Company. The suit is filed claiming an amount of Rs.19,53,000/- from Defendant No.1- Company and Defendant No.2, who is claimed to be Managing Director of Defendant No.1. The said amount relates to the loan obtained by Defendant No.1- Company in the year 1993. At the time of obtaining the loan, the Registered Office of the Company was at Hyderguda, Hyderabad. From 1996, it is changed to the above referred address. The jurisdiction Para in the plaint shows that since the mortgaged property is situated in Ranga Reddy District and therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is submitted that the present suit is filed only for recovery of money and as such jurisdiction would be governed by Section 20 CPC and not by Section 16 as the suit is not relating to any immovable property. Hence, it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.”
As noted above, the said amendment was ordered by the lower Court by Order, dated 08-02- 2011. In IA.No.745 of 2012, defendant No.1 has stated that though in IA.No.177 of 2010, its address was correctly shown in the cause title, by inadvertence, in the amended written statement, its original address was not substituted and that therefore, it has become necessary for further amendment of the written statement.
The fact that defendant No.1 sought amendment of the written statement only for the purpose of pleading that the plaintiff has given incorrect address and filed the suit in a wrong Court, as the properties of defendant No.1 are not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Ranga Reddy District Court, is not in dispute. By Order, dated 08-02- 2011, in IA.No.177 of 2010, the lower Court has accepted the request of defendant No.1 and permitted it to amend the written statement by incorporating Para 15A. The opening sentence of Para 15A reads thus:
“It is submitted that the Registered address of Defendant No.1. i.e., Petitioner No.1 herein is as mentioned in the cause title above”
The address of defendant No.1 given in the cause title of the said IA relates to ‘Mayur Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad’. The whole case of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that, inadvertently, the said address was not shown in the written statement. In other words, instead of specifically referring to the address of defendant No.1 as ‘Mayur Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad’, in the first sentence of Para 15A, defendant No.1 has obviously confused itself with the address mentioned in the cause title of IA.No.177 of 2010 with that of the written statement. When defendant No.1 has pleaded that by inadvertence the correct address, which was pleaded by it, could not be incorporated in the cause title of the written statement, I do not find any reason why the lower Court did not accept the same, having allowed IA.No.177 of 2010 filed earlier for amendment of the written statement by incorporating Para 15A. The lower Court has observed in its order, impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, that once the written statement was permitted to be amended, the defendants cannot ask for further amendment of the written statement and that grave injustice will be caused to the plaintiff as several new facts may come out, if such amendment is permitted. In my opinion, these observations are absolutely without any application of mind on the part of the lower Court. It has completely failed to identify the crux of the issue and dismissed the application in a perfunctory manner by making observations, which are extraneous to the facts and circumstances of the case.
As observed above, by the inadvertent mistake committed by defendant No.1, the very purpose of amendment of Para 15A was rendered redundant without substituting the address given by the plaintiff in the plaint with the address given by it in IA.No.177 of 2010. By further amendment vide IA.No.745 of 2012, defendant No.1 wanted to rectify this defect. Hence, the order under revision suffers from serious jurisdictional error and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Order, dated 09-12- 2013, in IA.No.745 of 2012 in OS.No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, is set aside and IA.No.745 of 2012 is allowed. The lower Court is directed to permit defendant No.1 to amend Para 15A of the written statement before proceeding with the adjudication of the suit.
On the above analysis, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
As a sequel, interim order, dated 05-02-2014, as extended by further orders, is vacated and CRPMP.No.327 of 2014 is disposed of.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 24th July, 2014
LUR