HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.476 of 2009 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.477 of 2009 Date: September 23, 2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.476 of 2009 Between: 1. Smt. Kundan Bai & 6 others. …Petitioners/ Respondents 1 to 7/ Defendants 1 to 7 And 1. Smt. Shobha & 110 others. …Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendants 11 to 117 * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.477 of 2009 Between: 1. Smt. Kundan Bai & 6 others. …Petitioners/ Respondents 1 to 7/ Defendants 1 to 7 And 1. Smt. Shobha & 110 others … Respondents Respondents/ Defendants 11 to 117 * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.476 of 2009 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.477 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Both the revision petitions arise out of the same suit involving common questions of fact and are hence being decided together. 2. Heard Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for first respondent. None of the other respondents entered appearance herein. 3. The plaintiff in the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties filed I.A. No.1158 of 2006 in O.S. No.85 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Sanga Reddy for impleading defendants 11 to 117 in the suit on the ground that during her cross-examination, it was suggested that item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties was already disposed of and the consequent inquires revealed that defendants 1 to 3 executed sale deeds relating to different plots of land in favour of the proposed defendants 11 to 117. Consequently, the plaintiff sought for impleadment of defendants 11 to 117. 4. The application was opposed by the contesting respondents and the trial court in the order dated 08.8.2009 considered that as the suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share and as the proposed defendants are claiming interest in portions of the suit property as purchasers, the request of the plaintiff is entertainable and has to be allowed. 5. Against the said order, defendants 1 to 7 filed C.R.P. No.477 of 2009 contending that defendants 11 to 117 are neither necessary nor proper parties as the suit could have been determined effectively without their presence. The controversy sought to be raised is something different from the one raised in the suit and the revision petitioners referred to various precedents from the Apex Court and this Court to contend that defendants 11 to 117 are not involved in any questions involved in the suit and hence they desired the impugned impleadment of the said defendants to be reversed. 6. The plaintiff had filed I.A. No.520 of 2008, consequent to the impleadment of defendants 11 to 117 as per orders in I.A. No.1158 of 2006, for consequential amendments to be made in the plaint. The plaintiff seeks to contend by way of amendment that the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of defendants 11 to 117 are created and fictitious documents not binding on the plaintiff. 7. The request for amendment was also opposed by all the contesting respondents and they pleaded that as the trial has already commenced, the amended order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibits consideration of the proposed amendment. 8. The trial court passed an order on 04.9.2008 finding that the amendment became necessitated only because defendants 11 to 117 were impleaded in the suit and the sale deeds in their favour have to be questioned by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff had no opportunity of raising the matter earlier in spite of due diligence, the prohibition under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not applicable and consequently the trial court allowed this application also. 9. Defendants 1 to 7 filed C.R.P. No.476 of 2009 against the said order contending that the order is opposed to mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which prohibited any amendment after the commencement of the trial and while the trial commenced with the filing of chief-examination affidavit of P.W.1 on 14.6.2006, the amendment petition was filed only on 22.4.2008 without any explanation for the delay. The admissions made by the plaintiff as P.W.1 and her witness as P.W.2 in their cross-examination are sought to be wiped out by making the amendment in pursuance of the impleadment of defendants 11 to 117. The revision petitioners therefore desired the order permitting the amendment also to be reversed. 10. The point for consideration is whether the impleadment of defendants 11 to 117 and permitting the consequential amendments in the plaint are legal and sustainable? 11. The suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is obviously resisted by the contesting defendants, in so far as the property in which defendants 11 to 117 are stated to be interested, on the ground of sale of Ac.1.20 guntas during the life time of the father of the plaintiff himself and the subsequent act of execution of the sale deeds in their favour by the contesting defendants being to discharge the moral obligation of having to honour the sale effected by the father of the plaintiff during his life time itself. The plaintiff obviously contends the documents executed in favour of defendants 11 to 117 to be created and fictitious documents by which she is not bound. 12. While the truth or otherwise of the respective contentions has to be agitated and decided in the suit itself, the fact remains that defendants 11 to 117 claimed interest in the respective portions of the suit property which they claim under the sale deeds in their favour which claims are definitely opposed to the right claimed by the plaintiff in the suit for partition of those plots of land as well and allotment of the share to which she is entitled to. The grounds of revision themselves point out that the defendants were positively contending about the mutation in their favour and the subsequent sales and the presence of such purchasers in the suit for partition undoubtedly enables the Court to have an effective adjudication of the questions in controversy between the parties due to which they can be considered to be proper parties, if not necessary parties, within the scope of Order I Rule 10 of CPC with reference to the principles laid down in various binding precedents referred to in the grounds of revision. Their presence in the suit undoubtedly helps in avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and complications. 13. Though there was some delay on the part of plaintiff in taking steps to implead these defendants and make consequential amendments in the plaint, the same may not stand in the way of comprehensive adjudication of the rights of the plaintiff as claimed in the suit and rules of procedure are intended to be hand maids of justice and not to punish the parties for technical lapses. The amendment permitted by the Court is consequential to the impleadment of defendants 11 to 117 and the plaintiff, as observed by the trial court, had no earlier opportunity to incorporate these pleas in the plaint before the impleadment of defendants 11 to 117. The prohibition under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC against amendments after commencement of trial is only when such amendments could have been made earlier if due diligence was exercised by the party. Under the circumstances, both the orders under revision do not appear susceptible to any interference. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the purpose and intent of both the applications is to see that the admissions made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their cross-examination during trial of the suit are wiped out. But any such apprehensions cannot be true, as even if P.W.1 and P.W.2 re-enter the witness box to speak contrary to any statements made by them earlier during their evidence already recorded, both the earlier and later statements will still be there for consideration of the trial court and will have to be considered together in appreciating the probative value of the claims made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their evidence. 15. Under the circumstances, both the revisions have to fail and accordingly they are dismissed without costs. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: September 23, 2010. BSB