THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3819 OF 2011 Dated:17-10-2014
Between
Venkat Srinivasan ... PETITIONER AND Mrs. Basheerunnisa Begum and six others .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3819 OF 2011 ORDER:
The respondents filed O.S No. 953 of 2009 in the Court of X Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for eviction from the suit schedule properties. The petitioner filed written statement raising certain pleas. The trial of the suit commenced and it has progressed for a substantial extent. At one stage, I.A No. 92 of 2010 filed by the respondents under Order XVA was also allowed. The petitioner filed I.A No. 41 of 2011 under Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, with a prayer to permit him to add para 4 which is to the effect that his enquiries revealed that Siraj Ahmed Khan from whom the premises was taken on lease was himself not the owner and there is some dispute about the actual ownership vis-à-vis the property. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 17-08-2011. Hence, this revision.
Heard Smt. Farhat Firdous, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Ram Chander Goud, learned counsel for the respondents.
It is no doubt true that the I.A was filed after the issues were framed and the trial was commenced. However, the bar under proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC is not absolute. In case, certain facts were not in the knowledge of a party when the pleadings were made and they came to his knowledge at a later point of time, the amendment can certainly be made. The basic principle that all the disputes between the parties must be permitted to be resolved in the same set of proceedings to the extent possible remains the same. It is no doubt true that the petitioner admitted that Siraj Ahmed Khan is the owner and the premises were taken on lease from him. The said Siraj Ahmed Khan is no more. However, if the enquiries reveal any different facts, there is no reason why the petitioner be not permitted to raise the same. Such contentions shall always be subject to proof. So far as the delay is concerned, this Court is of the view that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC has no application to the facts of the present case.
The C.R.P is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. I.A No. 41 of 2011 shall stand allowed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the rents as ordered in I.A, the defence together with the one which is incorporated through this revision shall stand struck off. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit at the earliest.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 17-10-2014 ks