MOHD. NAYEEM Vs. SRI SALE SAYEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1582 of 2016 in I.A.No.781 of 2016 and I.A.No.1583 of 2016 in I.A.No.780 of 2016 in O.S.No.306 of 2016 dated 06.01.2017, dismissing the applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC r/w Section 151 C.P.C seeking leave of the court to amend the affidavit by incorporating paragraph no.23 in the affidavit.

(2.) The question involved in both the cases is one and the same and hence, I find that it is expedient to decide both the petitions by common order.

(3.) The petitioners filed O.S.No.306 of 2016 for various reliefs. Along with the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.781 and 780 of 2016 for grant of interim injunction during pendency of the suit, for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property and also retraining them from making further constructions in the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed a memo before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking withdrawal of O.S.No.501 of 2015 before filing O.S.No.306 of 2016. The petitioners filed their affidavit raising several contentions. But the respondents raised a contention that the petitioner did not disclose the earlier suit O.S.No.501 of 2015 against the respondents and other interlocutory applications filed therein, including C.M.As and consequently I.A.Nos.781 and 780 of 2016 were heard. Thereupon, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1582 of 2016 in I.A.No.781 of 2016 and I.A.No.1583 of 2016 in I.A.No.780 of 2016 in O.S.No.306 of 2016 for amendment of two affidavits, on the ground that the petitioners filed a memo on the file of II Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for withdrawal of O.S.No.501 of 2015. It is submitted that the memo is still pending and no order has been passed on the memo, granting permission to withdraw the suit and no suit is pending as such. Further, the petitioners did not seek any permission from the Court for filing fresh on from the same cause of action. Therefore, the memo itself would constitute withdrawal of the suit and no further order is required. When the petitions came up for hearing, the Trial Court posted both the interlocutory applications for orders, in view of the directions issued by this Court in C.M.A.No.845 of 2016. Since the petitioners filed memo to withdraw O.S.No.501 of 2015, the petitioner is not required to disclose the proceedings in earlier suit O.S.No.501 of 2015 and incidental proceedings therein. But, in view of the objections, the petitioner sought for amendment of the affidavit, seeking leave of the Court to add paragraph 23 in the affidavit in I.A.No.1582 of 2016 in I.A.No.781 of 2016 and I.A.No.1583 of 2016 in I.A.No.780 of 2016 in O.S.No.306 of 2016. The respondents did not file any counter but advanced arguments during hearing.