IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1770 & 5483 OF 2007 C.R.P.No.1770 OF 2007 Between:- Zubair Razack …Petitioner A n d Jagdish Reddy and another …Respondents AND C.R.P.No.5483 OF 2007 Between:- Zubair Razack …Petitioner A n d Jagdish Reddy and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1770 & 5483 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1770 of 2007 is directed against the order dated 19-02-2007 in I.A.No.2 of 2007 in O.S.No.249 of 2002, on the file of the XI-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court), wherein the said application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the first respondent herein, the plaintiff, seeking permission to amend the plaint, was allowed. 2. C.R.P.No.5483 of 2007 is directed against the order dated 19-02-2007 in I.A.No.3 of 2007 in I.A.No.964 of 2004 in O.S.No.249 of 2002, on the file of the XI- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the first respondent herein, the plaintiff, seeking permission to amend the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.564 of 2004, was also allowed. 3. As the two revision petitions arise out of the same proceedings and in between the same parties, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 5. The petitioner herein filed the suit O.S.No.249 of 2002 initially against the first respondent herein for specific performance in respect of the plaint schedule property measuring 881 sq. yards situate in Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and in the alternative for a direction to the first respondent herein to return the advance amount of Rs.8 lakhs together with another sum of Rs.8 lakhs as compensation. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property from the first respondent herein under an oral agreement of sale and paid advance of Rs.8 lakhs under a receipt passed by the first respondent and that in spite of demands, the first respondent did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The first respondent filed a detailed written statement denying the suit agreement of sale and receipt of advance and passing of any receipt and further contending that she has gifted away the suit property on 19-07-2001 in favour of her minor son, the second respondent herein, by way of oral Hiba and, therefore, on the date of the alleged suit transaction she was not the owner of the property. The plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.545 and 546 of 2003, seeking to implead the second respondent herein, who is the son of the first respondent, as a party to the proceedings. The said petitions were dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff preferred C.R.P.Nos.2738 & 2741 of 2004. This Court by order dated 12-04-2006 allowed the two CRPs, holding that the second respondent herein is a proper and necessary party and he shall be impleaded as party defendant in order to have an effective adjudication of the issue involved and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, the second respondent herein was impleaded as second defendant. Thereafter, he filed a written statement also denying the suit agreement and contending that there is no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff and no relief can be granted against him. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint, as proposed in the petition. According to the plaintiff, the necessity to amend the plaint, as proposed, arose on account of impleadment of the second respondent herein, as second defendant in the suit. The plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to the effect that D- 2 is falsely claiming the suit property and the oral gift in favour of D-2 is illegal and to declare that the oral gift is null and void. Certain consequential amendments in the body of the plaint are also proposed. The second respondent filed counter reiterating his contentions in the written statement and further contending that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. 6. The learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that the relief sought against the second defendant by way of proposed amendment is barred by limitation. In fact, no such plea of bar of limitation is raised in the counter filed by the second respondent in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2007. Be that as it may, it is open for the second respondent to raise the said plea of limitation at appropriate stage in the suit proceedings. The proposed amendment is necessitated because of the impleadment of D-2. The impleadment of second respondent herein, as second defendant, was ordered by this Court in C.R.P.No.2741 of 2004, wherein it was specifically held that D-2 shall be added as a party defendant in order to have effective adjudication of the issue involved and also in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance initially against D-1. D-1 contended that she has already gifted the suit property in favour of D-2 under oral gift even by the date of the suit transaction and she ceased to be owner thereof. D-2 by disputing the claim of the plaintiff is setting title in himself under the alleged oral gift from his mother D-1. 7. The question as to whether or not the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance in the light of the defence putforward by the defendants, is matter to be considered after evidence is adduced in the course of trial. But in order to have effective adjudication of the dispute for which purpose D-2 was directed to be impleaded, it is necessary that the parties to the suit are permitted to place necessary pleadings before the Court. As rightly observed by the trial Court, any amount of evidence that may be let in would be of no avail in the absence of necessary pleadings in that regard. If the parties are prevented from placing their pleadings on record which are relevant for the adjudication of the dispute, they may not be able to adduce proper evidence during the course of trial. As D-2 was impleaded with a view to have a comprehensive adjudication of the whole dispute in the presence of all the parties concerned, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to place on record the necessary pleas pertaining to the claim made by D-2. Similarly, the defendants also would be entitled to place on record their additional pleas, if any, by way of additional written statement to meet the pleas putforward by the plaintiff by way of proposed amendment. It is open to the defendants to raise all such defences, including the plea of limitation available under law while defending the plaintiff’s suit. 8. The impugned order in I.A.No.2 of 2007 permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint, as proposed, does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity. However, insofar as I.A.No.3 of 2007 is concerned, the relief prayed for is to permit the plaintiff to amend the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.564 of 2004. Order VI Rule 17 CPC relates to amendment of pleadings. The question of amending the affidavit, which is a sworn statement of the party, does not arise under order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is open to the plaintiff to file an additional affidavit or a better affidavit with the leave of the Court. The impugned order in I.A.No.3 of 2007, permitting the plaintiff to amend the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.564 of 2004 is, however, unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, C.R.P.No.1770 of 2007 is dismissed, confirming the order in I.A.No.2 of 2007. C.R.P.No.5483 of 2007 is allowed, setting aside the impugned order in I.A.No.3 of 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th July 2010 Lrkm.