Korla Suranna (Died) and L.R. Vs. Tummalapalli Gangamma and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- practice & procedure repeal of act; [bilal nazki, c.v. ramulu & d. appa rao, jj] rules framed under the old (repealed) act held, rules framed under the repealed act do not remain in force once the act is repealed unless repealing act provided otherwise. - i am satisfied that the view taken by the learned munsif is not correct and on the contrary the amendment sought for is only a formal one and hence it is fit to be allowed......of action does not change in any manner. mr. prabhakar rao supported the impugned order.4. it is noteworthy that cause of action is a bundle of facts and cause of action does not mean a particular sale deed or source of title of the plaintiff. when the petitioner is asserting that his father had purchased the property by mentioning the sale deed, that is the main cause of action undoubtedly, but when a mistake has occurred in mentioning the date of the sale deed, it does not alter or change the cause of action. i am satisfied that the view taken by the learned munsif is not correct and on the contrary the amendment sought for is only a formal one and hence it is fit to be allowed.5. for the above reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently l.a. no. 1268/1993 stand allowed. the office is directed to transmit a copy of the order within a week so that the revision petitioner may carry out the amendment within two weeks thereafter. then the defendant may be given an opportunity to file additional written statement, if any, and further proceedings in the suit may be commenced from the stage at which it was stayed by this.....

Judgment:

ORDER

V. Bhaskara Rao, J.

1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order in L.A. No. 1268/1993 in O.S. No. 167/1987 on the file of Principal restrict Munsif, Ramachandrapuram, dated 30-9-1994, refusing an amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 167/1987, wherein he sought for declaration of right, title and interest and possession of the suit property. He based his title upon a sale deed dated 16-10-1939, the consideration thereunder being Rs. 38/-. He asserted in the affidavit that due to oldage he could not give the correct particulars of the transaction under which his father purchased the suit property and that the date of transaction 16-10-1939 was wrong. It is further asserted that subsequently it came to light that the sale deed is dated 15-7-1941 and he has led the evidence accordingly. He, therefore, sought for amendment of the plaint at two places viz., in para 3 to substitute '15-7-1941 for Rs. 100/-' for '16-10-1939 for Rs. 38/-' and in para 7 of the plaint the date 16-10-1939 to be substituted by '15-7-1941'. The respondents-defendants resisted the petition by filing a counter. On a consideration of the rival averments, the learned Munsif held that the amendment would amount to substitution of cause of action and dismissed the petition.

3. Mr. N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contended that the source of title is stated in the plaint and it remains same and the only amendment is in the date of sale deed and hence it is formal in character and the cause of action does not change in any manner. Mr. Prabhakar Rao supported the impugned order.

4. It is noteworthy that cause of action is a bundle of facts and cause of action does not mean a particular sale deed or source of title of the plaintiff. When the petitioner is asserting that his father had purchased the property by mentioning the sale deed, that is the main cause of action undoubtedly, but when a mistake has occurred in mentioning the date of the sale deed, it does not alter or change the cause of action. I am satisfied that the view taken by the learned Munsif is not correct and on the contrary the amendment sought for is only a formal one and hence it is fit to be allowed.

5. For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently L.A. No. 1268/1993 stand allowed. The office is directed to transmit a copy of the order within a week so that the revision petitioner may carry out the amendment within two weeks thereafter. Then the defendant may be given an opportunity to file additional written statement, if any, and further proceedings in the suit may be commenced from the stage at which it was stayed by this Court. There will be no order as to costs.