DERVIATECASOIL PVT LTD Vs. I T C LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two C.R.Ps are filed by the same petitioner, and arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. Petitioner filed O.S.No.36 of 1996 in the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, against the respondents herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.53,43,581-86 ps., pn the strength of two Memoranda of Understanding (MOU), dated 23-08-1990 and 31-10-1991. Respondents filed individual written statements, disputing their liability to pay any amount. The suit is at the stage of recording of evidence of the petitioner herein. The respondents filed separate applications under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., being I.A.Nos.30 and 31 of 2005, for amendment of the written-statements. The applications were identical, in all respects. They stated that O.S.No.90 of 1992 was filed by them, against the petitioner herein, in the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of certain amount and for supply of certain material. The suit is said to have been dismissed, on 30-06-2001. A copy of the said judgment had already been brought on record, as Ex.A-10. It was also stated that in terms of a document, which was marked as Ex.B-1, in O.S.No.90 of 1992, and which was taken on record in the present proceedings, as Ex.B-3, the liability under the MOUs stood discharged. On these lines, they wanted that paragraph 3-A running into about 4 typed pages, be added to their respective written-statements.

(2.) The petitioner opposed the application, raising several grounds, such as impermissibility of amendment, on account of the commencement of the trial of the suit; competence of the persons, who filed the applications; content of the petitions, affidavits, etc. The trial Court allowed the applications through common order dated 17-11-2005. Hence, these two revisions.

(3.) Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applications were not permissible, in view of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., through Act 22 of 2002. He contends that the persons, who filed the applications, were not properly authorized. He further submits that the paragraph, which is sought to be incorporated in the written-statements, lacks precision,, and cannot be permitted to be added.