1 APHC010412302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2051/2023 Between: 1. Datla Srinivasa Raju, S/o D.V.P. Raju, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o. Flat no.104, Rajitha Apartment, Rajiv nagar, Hyderabad. 2. Uaddaraju Venkata Satya Surya Subrahmanyam Raju, S/o Satyanarayana Raju, Aged 53 years, Business, R/o. Narasimhapuram village, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. M/s Gayathri Marine Products Private Limited, rep. By its managing director, D.K.Annapoorna, W/o Siva Rama Raju, aged 70 years, Business, R/o.plot no.1242/b, Road no.62, Jublee hills, Hyderabad. 2. D.Seetharama Raju, S/o Venkata Raju, Aged About 54 Years, Business, R/o.Cherukumilli Village, Akivedu Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. M Rama Krishna, S/o Achiah, aged 52 years, Business, R/o.P.H.B. Colony, HIG-15, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District (Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the present proceedings) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside order dated 03-08-2023 in I.A.No.256/2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 on the file of the Court of the X Addl. District Judge, 2 Machilipatnam, Krishna District consequently allow I.A.No.256/2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order of Stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.31/2017 on the file of the Court of the X Addl. District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District pending disposal of main Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M RADHAKRISHNA The Court made the following order: This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order 03.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.256 of 2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 by the learned X Addl. District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. The facts that led to filing of this revision are hereunder: The respondents are the plaintiffs and the petitioners are the defendants. The respondents filed suit vide O.S.No.31/2017 for eviction of the petitioners herein from the plaint schedule property, for damages and for recovery of arrears. In the said suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.256/2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amending the written statement by adding Para 14(a) which is specifically mentioned in the petition. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by way of a counter. After hearing the parties, 3 the court below has dismissed the said application under its order dated 03.08.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of the revision and the contents of the affidavit filed before the court below contended that, the petitioners/defendants entered into lease agreement with the plaintiffs and doing prawn culture and in order to evict the petitioners, the respondents have filed a suit for eviction wherein the petitioners have also filed written statement. He further submitted that, the petitioners/defendants have changed their counsel for various reasons and the present counsel has noticed that instead of approaching the Tribunal under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, the plaintiffs have filed the suit and the said contention was not pleaded in the written statement filed by the petitioners herein, which is very much essential for defending their case in the suit. He further submitted that, in LIC Vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and anr1 the Apex court held that inconsistent pleas can be taken in the pleadings. He further submitted that, though the petitioners have pleaded due diligence with regard to changing of the counsels in not filing the application earlier, the court below did not take into consideration the said fact. He further submitted that, the court below has failed to notice that by virtue of 1 2022 INSC 894 4 the said amendment, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents and they can as well file a rejoinder or can lead further evidence in that regard. He further submitted that, without considering the said aspects and without seeing the purport of Order VI rule 17 in a right perspective, the court below has erroneously dismissed the application causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioners. In support of his contentions, he also relied on the judgment rendered in Baldev Singh & others Vs Manohar Singh & another2 and accordingly prayed to allow the revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, before filing the suit, a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued (which is the basis for filing the suit) and in the said suit, the petitioners did not take any such defense that the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs have to approach the Tribunal by virtue of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. He further submitted that, after conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence, petitioner came up with amendment in written statement withdrawing the earlier stand taken in the original written statement. If such amendment is allowed, it not only causes prejudice to the plaintiffs but also amounts to miscarriage of justice wherein the petitioners/defendants are allowed to withdraw their earlier stand. He further submitted that, in Sunkara Seetha Mahalakshmi Vs thota Satyanarayana3, this Court has held that the prawn culture does not come under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, which was further confirmed by the Apex court. In view of 2 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498 3 2022 (5) ALT 738 (AP) 5 the same, the question of allowing the petitioners to incorporate a paragraph as sought by them does not arise. He also relied on the judgment of Apex court in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd & Anr Vs M/s Ladha Ram & Co.4 and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision petition, being meritless. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. In a suit filed for eviction, the petitioners/defendants filed an application vide I.A.No.256/2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement by adding Para 14(a) which reads as follows; Para No.14(a): This defendant submit that, lease of the plaint schedule property is for prawn culture in the tanks, the said aspect will not cover under the Transfer of Property Act and the prawn culture come under agriculture and that, any lease or rental dispute regarding the agriculture is covered under AP(AA) Tenancy Act, 1956 and to deal with the tenancy matters, there is a tribunal formed under AP(AA) Tenancy Act and that, the said tribunal alone is competent to deal with the tenancy matters and the civil court have no jurisdiction. This defendant submit that, as per the provisions of AP(AA) Tenancy Act the minimum lease period is for a period of 6 years, though the tenancy between the landlord and tenant is oral or written and that the tenant under the Tenancy Act have got right to continue the lease for a minimum period of 6 years. Thus, the defendants 1 to 4 being the tenants of the plaint schedule property covered under AP (AA) Tenancy Act have got right under the provisions to continue the lease for a minimum period of 6 years and this Hon’ble court as civil court have no jurisdiction to entertain civil suit in respect of the tenancy matters covered under AP(AA) Tenancy Act and that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the Hon’ble Court have no jurisdiction”. 8. The said application was dismissed by the court below on the ground that petitioners have no right to seek amendment of written statement which 4 (1976) 4 SCC 320 6 was filed 6 years ago and that it would cause prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff who has already adduced evidence. 9. The contention of the respondents/plaintiffs is that, either at the time of issuing legal notice before filing the suit or in the written statement, the petitioners/defendants did not take the stand that, the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs have to approach Tribunal by virtue of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. After completion of plaintiffs’ evidence, the petitioners have filed such an application seeking amendment for incorporating the said paragraph, is nothing but withdrawing the earlier stand taken in the original statement. Whereas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that due to change of counsels, the said mistake was not identified in time and that the present counsel having identified the same, filed the amendment application in the written statement stating that the plaintiffs can file a rejoinder or can let in the further evidence. 10. The important points that have to be looked into are whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side and whether the amendment changes the nature or character of the suit. It is well settled that, any rights accrued to the opposite parties cannot be taken away on the ground of delay of filing an application. 11. It would be beneficial to extract Para No.6 of the Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd (supra 4), which reads as under: 7 6. The defendants/appellants approximately 3 years after the filing of the written statement made an application for amendment of the written statement. The proposed amendments were for deletion of paragraphs 25 and 26 and for substitution of two new paragraphs 25 and 26. The proposed amendment in para 25 was that by virtue of the agreement the plaintiff acted in that capacity in placing orders on the defendants. The defendants further denied the allegation of the plaintiff that the plaintiff placed orders with the defendants in the plaintiffs capacity as a purchaser. The defendants also alleged that the plaintiff throughout acted as an agent of the defendants. In paragraph 26 of the proposed amendment it was alleged by the defendants that being a mercantile agent and an agent of the defendants in accordance with the terms of the agreement the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. 12. In the said case, the defendants sought to amend their written statement after three years to change their stance from the plaintiff being a "purchaser" to the plaintiff being an "agent". The Supreme court dismissed the appeal held that while the rules for amending a written statement are generally liberal but a defendant cannot be allowed to withdraw a categorical admission or could not be permitted to amend the written statement in a manner that fundamentally changed their original stance to the detriment of the plaintiff. 13. The facts of the case on hand are similar to that of the cases referred above. A careful perusal of the Para 14(a) which is sought to be amended would indicate that it is virtually attacking the mere maintainability of the suit. Admittedly, a notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued before filing the suit and that the petitioners have not given any reply to the said notice. It is also admitted fact that, plaintiffs evidence was also adduced. Further, this court in Sunkara Seetha Mahalakshmi (supra 3), has held that the prawn culture does not come under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra 8 Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 which was further confirmed by the Apex court. On the said ground also, no purpose would be served in amending the written statement by incorporation a Para No.14(a). The judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Therefore, this court finds no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the trial court and the same warrants no interference of this court and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a direction to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the suit. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners/defendants are always at liberty to raise legal pleas in the suit. Though this court is well aware of the judgment passed by the Apex court that High courts should not give any directions to the trail court to dispose of the case by fixing a time, the case on hand is an exceptional case where the suit is of the year 2017, as such, this court is inclined to give a direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS