w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



P. Mukunda Rao v/s The Eluru Town Auto Mobile Mechanical Association, represented by its Delinquent President Magani & Others

    Civil Revision Petition No. 1263 of 2021

    Decided On, 15 June 2022

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

    For the Petitioner: Marella Radha, Advocate. For the Respondents: Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, Advocate.



Judgment Text

The present Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order dated 05.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.1522 of 2019 in S.O.P.No.457 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.

2. Heard Smt.Marella Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. None entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

3. The petitioner herein filed the above referred S.O.P and the gist of the averments made therein, for the purpose of the present case, may briefly be stated:

4. The 1st respondent-Association was formed in the year 1982. One Maganti Nagabhushanam and Sri Yerra Rama Krsihna were elected as President and Secretary of the said Association respectively and they have committed certain illegal acts for their personal gain. The office bearers of the 1st respondent-Association have allotted sites to several persons, who are ineligible for membership. The said Nagabhushanam, as President of the said Association got himself allotted site in an extent of 600 Sq. Yards and managed to get another bit of 600 Sq. Yards, which was allotted in his individual capacity. In view of the glaring illegal acts committed by the office bearers of the 1st respondent-Association, the 3rd respondent is supposed to cancel them, pursuant to the recitals of the Registered Covenant dated 08.08.2007, which was registered on 09.08.2007. The inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent had resulted in injustice to the petitioner and other members, thereby welfare scheme launched by the Government for the benefit of the members is foiled. Therefore, the petitioner seeks direction to the 3rd respondent to take action pursuant to the recitals of the Registered Covenant and make good the loss sustained by the association from the President and Secretary and others. The delinquent President and Secretary have not implemented the resolutions passed for general welfare of the members. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent-Association to grant site of 1200 Sq. Yards according to the nature and quantum of work. But, the 1st respondent-Association though bound to grant site of 600 Sq. Yards has granted only vacant site of 300 Sq. Yards alone.

5. The petitioner ultimately sought the following reliefs:-

“i) To pass a decree directing the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Limited (3rd respondent) to take necessary action pursuant to the recitals in the Registered Covenant in between 1st respondent-Association and the 3rd respondent, consequently direct the concerned to grant site of 600 Sq. Yards;

ii) To cancel all illegal allotments and to grant such other reliefs.”

6. In the said Original Petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1522 of 2019 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) and Section 151 of CPC to permit him to amend the main Original Petition by inserting the proposed amendments and to permit all consequential amendments. The proposed amendments may be extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

Consequential & Proposed Amendments

1. Add and amend the main petition by inserting the following Para Nos.8.a, 8.b, 8.c, 8.d, 8.e, 8.f after Para 8.

8.a) The petitioner humbly further state that initially in the year 1991, the total members of the association was 271. At the time of allotment of site by the A.P.I.I.C, it was inflated to 306. Subsequently Sri Maganti Nagabhushanam with his own passion according to his wish and personal interest, added 104 more members, who are not related to Auto Mobile industry by violating the rules and regulations to extract money from them viz., relatives, persons relating to other distrits, employees, Builders, Advocates, owners of Cloth, Shops, Engineering Students, Tea Stall owners, Bank Managers. Now the membership of the association is 410. Subsequently after assigning power of execution of sale deeds from the A.P.I.I.C, by way of Sale Deed dated 09.06.2014 he again impleaded about 150 members who are not related to Auto Mobile Mechanisim filed and registered sites in their favour according to wish for gaining much more money. Now the total beneficiaries who got sites are more than 550. Moreover there were 60 to 70 members who are the members since the date of registration of association, 1991, they did not get any site till today.

8.b) The petitioner further submitted that the delinquent President of the 1st respondent Sri Maganti Nagabhushanam allotted two plots to himself and his son Maganti Suresh and got registered sale deeds vide No.5096/2014 and 5095/2014 of SRO, Eluru in their favour vide plot Nos.340 and 341 an extent of 600 Sq. Yards each plot and further he allotted three plots in total an extent of 1200 Sq. Yards of site in favour of her daughter namely Maganti Surekha, vide plot Nos.329A, 32B and 330 and executed Registered Sale Deeds vide Nos.8257/2014 and 8676/2014 of SRO, Eluru, who is permanent resident of USA (NRI) and registered the common amenities site belongs to Association in an extent of 2422 Sq. Yards by way of Gift Deed to his son-Maganti Suresh vide under Document No.8788 dated 19.09.2014 and illegal construction was constructing therein and also 1st respondent President several plots were allotted and executed sale deeds in favour of bogus/sham persons under the guise of mechanies as if genuine member of the 1st Respondent association. The said delinquent President Maganti Nagabhushanam misused the instrumental power conferred by the 3rd respondent in sale deed dated 09.06.2014 vide Regd.No.4701/2014 of SRO, Eluru in execution of regular Registered sale deeds by him in favour of the members of the 1st respondent association. The said power under registered sale deed is totally misappropriated for his wrongful gain. It is further submitted that the particulars of the other illegal allotments will be given in my evidence.

8.c) The Petitioner submit that the 3rd respondent failed to verify the bye-law rules and legal validity of 1st respondent Society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 while executing regular Registered Sale Deed No.470/2014, dated 09.06.2014 in favour of Maganti Nagabhushanam. As on the date of the above sale deed registration the 1st respondent association society is not in subsistence.

8.d) The petitioner further submit that on receipt of several complaints from the members of the association about the illegal acts of the 1st and 2nd respondents in allotment process and etc., thereby the 3rd respondent neither conducted any enquiry to find out the genuine allotments from total allotments made by the respondents 1 & 2 nor take steps to enquire the illegalities of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 through State Agency or Central Agency, instead of taking necessary action about the illegalities and irregularities of the respondents 1 & 2 and their department men, who were actively supported the respondents 1 & 2 while the 1st respondent executing the sale deeds in favour of sham and bogus persons by violating stipulated supervisory duties. In a part of mystical melodrama the 3rd respondent ultimately issued allotment cancelation proceedings vide Lr.No.ZM/APIIC/KKD/AN/Eluru (allot) 2013, dated 28.12.2016, by cancelling the allotment made in favour of the 1st respondent association in toto Ac.54.54 cents pertaining to the Sy.Nos.4/1 to 4/6, 5/1, 5/2, 260 (part), 261, 262/1, 262/2, 263, 264/1A, B, C and 264/2, situated at Malkapuram Village, Eluru Road, West Godavari District in toto is illegal, felonious and arbitrary, the above cancelation proceedings issued in toto is nothing but to cover up their intentional omissions, latches, negligence and responsibilities on the part of the APIIC, which was not binding on me.

8.e) The Petitioner humbly further submitted that even numerous complaints received about the said big land scam and substantial documentary Evidence, still today no full-fledged enquiry ordered by the 3rd respondent, the reasons best known to them, which is noticeable that why the APIIC reluctant to hold enquiry into land scam, the intentional omissions done by the APIIC, which caused it’s very object is defeated.

8.f) The Petitioner submit that some aggrieved members of the association brought to the notice of the APIIC and other concerned departmental officials about the illegalities and irregularities of the delinquent president but they failed to respond and created artificial inconsistence among the concerned departmental officials and provided extended help to the subject Land SCAM of delinquent president for their wrongful gain, and Some of APIIC officials Renegade acts were the main root cause of the subject Land SCAM.

2. Amend the Relief Portion by Adding the Relief Portion after word pleased to in the 2nd line as;

“Determine and declare the allotment cancelation proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Lr.No.ZM/APIIC/KKD/AN/Eluru (allot) 2013, dated 28.12.2016, by cancelling the allotment made in favour of the 1st respondent association in Toto Ac.54.54 cents pertaining to the Sy.Nos.4/1 to 4/6, 5/1, 5/2, 260 (part), 261, 262/1, 262/2, 263, 264/1A, B, C and 264/2, situated at Malapuram Village, Eluru Road, West Godavari District is illegal, felonious and arbitrary, which is not binding against the petitioner and to”

7. The said application was opposed by the respondents and by an Order dated 05.08.2021, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition came to be filed.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the Order under Revision is liable to be set aside, as the learned Principal District Judge failed to consider the matter in a correct perspective. She submits that the application seeking amendment of the main petition is necessitated, in view of the events subsequent to the filing of the Original Petition and by allowing the same, the earlier questions in controversy can effectively be adjudicated. The learned counsel would also submit that the trial has not yet been commenced and no prejudice would be caused, if the petition is allowed to be amended, as sought for.

9. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was allotted land of 600 Sq. Yards, but the same was reduced to 300 Sq. Yards, in view of the illegalities committed by the President of the 1st respondent-Association. While referring to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A in question, she submits that the President of the 1st respondent-Association allotted plots to himself, his son and daughter illegally by misusing his position. She submits that in view of the Land Scam of the President of the 1st respondent-Association, which came to the light after filing of the Original Petition, the petitioner was advised to seek the amendments referred to above. She submits that the application for amendment has to be viewed in a broader perspective instead of disposing of it on the basis of narrow considerations, to avoid injustice to the parties to the litigation. She further submits that the learned Principal District Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction in allowing the application seeking amendment, which is sought for to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In any event, the learned counsel would contend that the Order under Revision requires to be corrected in exercise of powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand while refuting the submissions, contends that by virtue of the amendment sought by the petitioner, the nature of the Original Petition would be changed and considering the said aspect with reference to the settled legal position, the learned District Judge was not inclined to allow the application. The learned counsel would also submit that under the guise of the proposed amendments, the petitioner is seeking altogether a new relief, which is beyond the scope of the Original Petition and the same is impermissible. The learned counsel further submits that though several allegations were made against the President and Secretary of the 1st respondent-Association with regard to alleged illegal allotment of the plots, they were not made co-nomine parties. He also submits that if the petitioner has any grievance against the alleged illegal allotments, he has to work out his remedies independently by impleading the necessary parties, before the competent Forum. The learned counsel submits that the Order under Revision does not suffer from material irregularity or perversity, in the absence of which, no interference is called for by this Court as prayed for. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition.

11. On a consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of material on record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is “Whether the Order under Revision warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?”

12. Before dealing with the correctness or otherwise of the Order under Revision, it may be appropriate to state that there is no dispute with regard to the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 559), wherein it was held that pre-trial amendments should normally be liberally allowed than the amendment sought after commencement of the trial. However, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K. Modi (AIR 2006 SC 1647) it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether amendment is necessary for determining the controversy. Further, it is settled Law that by amendment of plaint, the party cannot seek to alter the basic structure of the suit.

13. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application for amendment inter alia opining that amendment of pleadings after lapse of 6 years is not permissible and no plausible reason was shown to overcome proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC. The said conclusion is not sustainable as the trial has not been commenced. However, the finding with regard to prayers that they are contradictory cannot be found fault with. The prayer sought to be amended is beyond the scope of Original Petiti

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on. 14. Further, a close reading of the averments made in support of the main Original Petition and the allegations/averments made in support of the I.A seeking amendment of Original Petition, would go to show that though the petitioner’s endeavour is to bring in the subsequent events on record and mould the reliefs originally sought for, the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments submitted that the amendment of relief portion as sought for with regard to cancellation proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent dated 28.12.2016 is not pressed. By virtue of the said proceedings, the allotment made in favour of the 1st respondent of an extent of Ac.54.54 cents was cancelled in toto. It would also appear that the land was resumed by the 3rd respondent and a Writ Petition W.P.No.3748 of 2017 challenging the cancellation and C.C.No.2030 of 2017 alleging violation of status quo Orders against the 1st respondent and others are pending. In such circumstances, the incorporation of paras by way of proposed amendment depicting the subsequent events, in the opinion of this Court would be of no benefit to the petitioner nor the same is necessary for adjudicating the matter between the parties, if it is still sought to be pursued. 15. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the Order under Revision and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No Order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
O R