IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5863 OF 2009 Between: A. Nagabhushanam and another. --- Petitioners. AND M/s.Vyasa Co-operative Educational Society, Rep. by its President, Jangaon, and nine others. --- Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5863 OF 2009 ORDER: This Revision is directed against the orders dated 19-11-2009, passed in I.A. No.442 of 2009 in O.S. No.6 of 1995, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, whereby, an application filed seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C was dismissed. Brief facts are that the petitioners’ son was admitted in second respondent’s college, run by the first respondent, and as he was opposing certain misdeeds committed by the respondent Nos.3 and 7, the respondents are said to have caused the death of the deceased, who was in their custody for academic purpose, either due to their negligence or willful conduct. The death of the petitioner’s son the way in which he was died, raised some suspicion. His parents i.e., the petitioners herein gave a report and the same was registered as Crime No.145 of 1993 against the third respondent R. Narendra Reddy (who is no more) and another for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. In those circumstances, the plaintiff and his wife also instituted the suit against them claiming damages for the injury sustained by them. Though, the injury which was caused to the petitioners cannot adequately compensate in terms of money, such injury has to be compensated by general, special and penal damages and the same was numbered as O.S.No.6 of 1995 against the respondents. The respondents contested the said suit, by filing written statements and after the entire evidence was over, as the first respondent is arrayed as M/s. Vyasa Co-operative Educational Society, Jangaon, represented by its President and since it is only Vyasa Educational Society, but not M/s. Vyasa Co-operative Educational Society, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of the cause title. The same was opposed by the respondents, and after hearing, the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, dismissed the said application by passing a detailed order and as stated supra, the same is challenged in this Revision. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Bankatlal Mandhani, that if the said cause title is not amended, it would be difficult for the petitioners at a stage when the execution proceedings are commenced and further according to him, by amending the said title no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 submitted that the said school was established by respondent Nos. 9 and 10 subsequent to the death of the plaintiffs’ son, and the present application is filed at a belated stage only to protract the litigation. It is further submitted that there are no bonafidies in the said petition. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that on earlier occasions, the petitioners filed two applications i.e., I.A. No.354 of 2006 and I.A. No.617 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and those applications were allowed. Of course, those applications are for impleadment of respondent Nos.9 and 10 and also for the purpose of bringing the legal representatives of third defendant in the suit i.e., R. Narendra Reddy. No doubt it is true that the suit is of the year 1995 and the present application is filed in the year 2009 i.e., after a lapse of 14 years and it cannot be denied that there are laches on the part of the petitioners. Further, the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it becomes difficult for them to proceed against the respondents during the course of execution proceedings is far fetched. It is not known as to whether the suit is going to be decreed or dismissed. It is only in the event of said suit being decreed, the question of execution proceedings would arise. However, the fact, which remains, is that the first respondent is only Vyasa Educational Society whereas, in the cause title it is described as M/s. Vyasa Co-operative Educational Society, represented by its president Jangaon. In the normal circumstances, at the time when the suit is instituted, it is for the petitioners/plaintiffs to give the descriptive particulars in a correct manner and the petitioners had not given the descriptive particulars in correct manner and the present application is filed after a lapse of 14 years. But, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not contesting the suit and it is only respondent Nos.9 and 10 who established the Educational Society are contesting the said suit. Further, at the time when the suit was instituted, there was no prohibition for amendment of the plaint at any stage of the proceedings. The amendment by way of proviso came into existence to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. only with effect from 01-07-2002. In my considered view, if such an amendment is made, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Nos.9 and 10 as they are the subsequent purchasers, but the fact which remains is that there is abnormal delay in filing the present application. Of course, the judgment on which the learned counsel placed reliance lets support to his contention that there is no limitation for filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. The said ratio was laid down by the Supreme Court in Kurapati Venkata Mallayya and another V. Thondepu Ramaswami and Co. and another[1], wherein it was held as follows : “The High Court has observed that even assuming that it would have been more appropriate for the Receiver to show in the cause title that it was the firm which was the real plaintiff and that the firm was suing through him it was merely a case of misdescription and that the plaint could be amended at any time for the purpose of showing the correct description of the plaintiff. We agree with the High Court that where there is a case of misdescsription of parties it is open to the court to allow an amendment of the plaint at any time and the question of limitation would not arise in such a case.” May be it is true, that there is no limitation for filing an application of this nature, but it cannot be said that there are no laches. Limitation is altogether different from that of the laches. In those circumstances, though this Court upholds the contention of the petitioners and allows this Revision by setting aside the order dated 19-11-2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, in I.A. No.442 of 2009 in O.S. No.6 of 1995, imposes a costs of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority at Warangal, by the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today. On ascertaining the fact that the said costs are deposited, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, shall permit the respondents to file additional written statement, if any, pertaining to the said amendment only and having regard to the fact that it is an old suit of the year 1995, learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, shall give utmost priority and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. December, 03, 2010. DSH [1] AIR 1964 SC 818