IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 84 OF 2011. Between: Smt. Massarath Yasmeen … Petitioner V/s. Mohammed Azeemuddin & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Subba Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy The Court made the following : (Order follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 84 OF 2011 O R D E R : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 08-12-2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad district, in I.A.No. 360 of 2010 in OS.No.67 of 2008. 2. The defendant in the suit is the petitioner. The plaintiff- respondent filed the suit against the Revision Petitioner-defendant for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15-1-2008 in respect of an open plot measuring 240 sq.yards. Under the agreement of sale, the revision petitioner agreed to purchase the property for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.48,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the remaining amount within a period of two months. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent subsequently addressed a letter expressing his inability to purchase the plaint schedule plot and permitting him to sell away the open plot to third party and pay the earnest money back to him. It is said that after receiving the letter, the revision petitioner sold part of the suit plot bearing Nos. 43 and 44 of an extent of 240 sq.yards to one Md. Sarwar resident of Nizamabad and executed a registered sale deed in his favour. Subsequent to the said sale the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract in terms of the agreement of sale, dated 15-1-2008. 3. The version of the respondent is that only after filing of the written statement on 22-1-2009 by the revision petitioner mentioning therein that he sold the property to Md.Sarwar, he came to know about the said sale and therefore he could not plead the same in the plaint. He further submits that after filing the written statement he filed memo into the court to furnish the details of the said sale so as to enable him to implead subsequent purchaser as defendant in the suit. But the respondent says that no such particulars were furnished by the revision petitioner and he came to know about the particulars when the revision petitioner filed petition Under Order-21, Rule-47 of CPC before the Additional District Judge (VII Fast Track Court) Bodhan in CMA.No. 26 of 2009 for receiving the document i.e., the xerox copy of the sale deed No. 4566/08, dated 23-6-2008 as additional evidence. After knowing the particulars from the additional evidence petition filed by the revision petitioner, the respondent- plaintiff filed IA.No.360 of 2010 seeking amendment of the plaint and impleadment of Md.Sarwar, the subsequent purchaser as defendant in the said suit, the said petition was allowed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that since the respondent addressed a letter stating that he is not willing to purchase the property and perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale, he sold the property to Md.Sarwar and the respondent therefore cannot maintain a petition either to amend the plaint or to implead Md.Sarwar, as the second defendant. He would further submit that in the suit, the written statement was filed, issues were settled and the trial was already commenced during the course of which the respondent-plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit and at the belated stage the amendment shall not be allowed as per law. His last contention is that the impleadment of Md.Sarwar as second defendant amending the plaint and adding the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed are two distinct reliefs and the said reliefs cannot be sought in one petition and the respondents ought to have filed two separate petitions and therefore the petition filed by the revision petitioner praying for two reliefs is not maintainable. 5. Heard Sri M.Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner relied upon a decision in SUPRIYA COLD STORAGE, WARANGAL V/s. K. SAMBASIVA RAO AND ORS [1], wherein the learned single Judge of this Court held that in a single petition multiple prayers are not maintainable and there should be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon a decision in KAVALI NARAYANA AND ORS. V/s. KAVALI CHENNAMMA[2], wherein another single Judge of this Court held that a petition to condone the delay in setting aside the exparte decree being interconnected with main relief, namely setting aside exparte decree squarely falls under category of “consequential reliefs”, which are exempt from requirement of Rule 55 of Rules. Therefore, single petition can be maintained. 8. Rule 55 of the A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 reads as follows : 55 (New) Separate Application for each distinct prayer : There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several reliefs are combined in one application, the Court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such reliefs unless the reliefs are “consequential” and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others. 9. In fact, there is no conflict between the two judgments rendered in the above-mentioned cases. If the relief is separate and distinct as per Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice two separate applications have to be filed. When one relief is ancillary to the main relief or inter-connected to the main relief two prayers can be asked for in one petition and those prayers can be granted. Even other wise as per Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice if these two separate applications are necessary the Court may direct the party making the application to file two separate applications. But when once the party is entitled to the relief, the Court is not supposed to dismiss the petition on the technical ground. 10. Order-VI, Rule-17 of CPC which deals with the amendment of pleadings, reads as follows : Order-VI, Rule-17 Amendment of Pleadings : The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 11. From the provision, it is, therefore, obvious that when once the trial is commenced the party seeking amendment has to satisfy the Court that inspite of due diligence, he could not make the amendment application before the commencement of the trial. 12. In the instant case, on the date of filing of the suit the respondent is not aware of the sale of 240 sq.yards of plot covered by the agreement of sale in favour of Md.Sarwar under the registered sale deed dated 15-1-2008. He could only know the said fact after filing of the written statement by the revision petitioner-defendant on 22-1-2009. Soon after knowing the said fact, the respondent filed a memo into the court asking the revision petitioner to furnish the particulars of the sale in favour of Md.Sarwar so as to enable him to file petition for impleadment and amendment but no particulars were evidently furnished by the respondent. Subsequently only when the revision petitioner filed additional evidence petition in CMA.No.26 of 2009 with a prayer to receive the sale deed executed in favour of Md.Sarwar as additional evidence, the respondent could know about the particulars of the sale deed executed by the revision petitioner in favour of Md.Sarwar. Subsequently he applied for certified copies of the sale deed sought to be received in CMA.No. 26 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Bodhan and soon after that he filed IA.No. 360 of 2010 in OS.No. 67 of 2008 in respect of which the order impugned in the revision was passed by the learned trial Court. 13. From the facts of the case which are referred hereinabove, it seems that in spite of due diligence by the respondent he could not file the petition seeking amendment as well as impleadment of subsequent purchaser as the second defendant, and therefore, it cannot be said that there are any latches on his part. Further the proposed amendment or addition of Md.Sarwar as second defendant in the suit does not alter the cause of action in the suit. The subsequent sale deed executed by the revision petitioner in favour of Md.Sarwar was not in the knowledge of the respondents at the time of filing of the suit. Therefore, prior to the commencement of the trial it seems the respondent could not be able to find out the particulars relating to the subsequent sale in favour of Md.Sarwar. It cannot be said that he is not entitled to seek amendment of plaint and impleadment of Md.Sarwar as second defendant. The learned trial Court is therefore rightly exercised its jurisdiction in allowing the prayer for amendment and impleadment of Md.Sarwar as second defendant. There is no error of jurisdiction committed by the learned trial Court. There is no irregularity or illegality committed by the learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and the order does not call for any interference in this revision. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 30-08-2011 I s L N B : L.R. Copy to be marked. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 84 OF 2011 Circulation No. 11 Date:30-08-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43 [1] ) 2006 (3) ALD 659 [2] ) 2005 (1) ALD-672