K.valarmathi and others v. Kumaresan

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 Stay all further proceedings pursuant to the lmpugned Order dt. 08.06.2023 passed in l.A.No. 102 of 2022 in O.P.No. 55 of 2005, before the Telangana Co- operative Tribunal at Hyderabad, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. t Counselfor the Petitioners: Sri. Madhusudhan Reddy Pasunoor Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. M Venkat Divakar The Court made the following: ORDER ,. , THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CTVIL No.22OS of 2ol23 ORDER:

1. This civil Revision Petition is hled under Article 22T of constitution of India assailing the order dated 0g.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.Lo2 of 2022 in o.P.No.Ss of 2oos by the Telangana co- operative Tribunal at Hyderabad.

2. Petitioners herein are the respondents and sole respondent herein is petitioner in I.A.No.1O2 of 2022.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court grossly erred in allowing the application for amendment after 15 years knowing fully well that the trial in o.p. is concluded and the same is posted for final hearing. The application filed by the respondent is to lill up the lacuna and the relief sought therein totally changes the character of the O.p.

3.2. The trial court failed to see that the entire proceedings initiated are from 2oo4 and the respondent has no locus standi to continue the proceedings, being barred by limitation, ouglL not to have allow the application. 2 cRP.No.220rTffi3 ' .

3.3. The trial Court failed to see that the application filed by the respondent under order VI rule 17 of CPC by itself is not maintainable as the liquidator is seized of the matter since 2OO4 and if at all he wants to continue the proceedings, either he should have filed the application to transpose himself as plaintiff in the place of the respondent or should have frled implead petition and failure to do so, filing the present application is totally misconceived and not maintainable and allowing of the application at the instance of the respondent after LT years is causing miscarriage of justice.

3.4. The trial Court allowed the application in absence of valid reasons, amendment application cannot be allowed at the stage of arguments. In support of his contentions he relied on the decision of Basavaraj v Indira and othersl

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the affidavit is nt"a by the liquidator before the trial Court and respondent-petitioner Bank is in liquidation with effect from O7.12.2OO4. But the respondent-petitioner could not bring the liquidator on record, evidence of the liquidator of is also recorded and the O"T".s-respondents have also stated in th:lause title 'zozq INSC 151 3 BRMR,J CRP.No.2205 of 2023 of the affidavit that the Bank is represented by the liquidator. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions in the cases of i) Harcharan v State of Haryana2 and ii) Life lnsurance corporation of India v Sanjeev Builders private Limited and another3.

5. Power of the High court under Article 22T of constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.valarmathi and others vs. Kumaresan - 202s scc OnLine SC 985)'.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioneis during the course of arguments has relied on sections 41, 42 and 43 of the A.P.Mutually Aided Corporative Societies Act, 1995 2 lg82 Law Suit (SC) 186 3 (2022) 16 SCC 1. \-s i 4 CRP.No.22O5 of 2023

7. Respondent-petitioner Bank has filed O.P. against petitioners-respondents on 16.11.2024. The same was returned with office objections by the learned Tribunal and thereafter objections were complied and the O.P. came to be numbered on 06.08.2005 vide o.P.No.55 of 20O5. The respondent - petitioner - Bank went in liquidation on O7.12.2OO4. Petitioners who are respondents in the o.P. have filed their counter on 19.O3.2008.

8. Proceeding of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Prad,esh, Hyderabad d.ated O7.12.2OO2 goes to show that the respondent-petitioner Bank went in liquidation and accordingly, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has appointed a liquidator (Sri.V.Amarendra Rao) and he shall discharge the duties as per Section 42 ofA.P.Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act. g. As per the proceedings of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dated'O7.12.2OO2, respondent- petitioner-Bank has been taken over by liquidator on the above said date but the respondent-petitioner failed to amend the cause title. Record further goes to show that the liquidator has filed his affidavit in the form of PW-l and was cross-examined by the petitioners-respondents counsel. {, 5 BRMR,J CRP.No.22OS ot2023

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has arso filed additionar material papers which are chief-examination affidavit of RWs.1 to 3 and the adjournment petition liled by the petitioners seeking adjournment of o.p for a period of 4 weeks as the petitioner No.I has under gone chest pain. The cause titre shown in the affidavit of Rwl to Rw3 is that co-operative Bank is represented by its liquidator, R.p.Road, Secunderabad (respondent herein). The similar cause title is arso mentioned in the application fired by the petitioners seeking adjournment of the O.p. 11'1. In Basavarajl, the Supreme court has held that if the amendment is aflowed in the case on hand certainly prejudice wilr be caused to the appelrant, which cannot be done directry, cannot be allowed to be done indirecfly. ll-2- Having gone through the above said decision, I find that they are distinguished from the facts of the preqent case and thus the ratio of the above said case wourd not apply in the present case. 12'l' In Ganesh Trading company v Moji Rama, the supreme held that "procedurar law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. provisions relating to preading in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of 4AIR 1g7g SC 484 \ , i-l BRMR,J CRP.No.22OS of 2023 6 the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is really at issue between parties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take". L2.2.The above said decision is followed in Haricharan2 case.

13. In Sanjeev Builders3 the Supreme Court held as follows:

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings provided a) the amendm..rt do"" not result in injustice to the other side, bi by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to - withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and c) Tie amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4.1 By the amendment, a time-barred claim is introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would becomes a relevant factor for consideration' 71.6 Where the amendment would enable the Court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed' sought to be be time-barred t4. As stated supra, the liquidator is examine as Pw- I in main O.P. and the said witness is cross examined by the petitioners' counsel and petitioners who are respondents in the O.P' have also filed their affidavits, which goes to show that the respondent - petitioner Bank is represented by a liquidator' I, 7 BRMR,J CRP.No.22OS of 2023 15' The o'P' filed by the respondent-petitioner is to direct the respondents therein (petitioners herein) to pay a sum of Rs'2,72,o6,ols/- and to award interest at the agreed rate of 2loh per annum together with penal interest of 2%o above agreed rate of interest and to sell the suit schedure property shown in the o.p. 16' As the o-p. filed by the respondent is for recovery of huge amount, the learned trial court has taken into consideration the aspects of delay and rightly observed in para Nos.19 to 34 and held that as the respondent-petitioner-bank went in liquidation and symbolically imposed cost of Rs. roo / - payable to the respondents (petitioners herein). t\ t I \ 17- This court is of the view that the rearned triar court has properly considered the contentions of the parties and rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent under order vI Rule 17 of cpc- This court is of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case to interference with the order passed by the learned trial Court

18. In view of the above reasoning the civil Revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to dismissed. J 8 CRP.No.22OS of 2023

19. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR o SECT!ON OFFIGER To PR I

1. The Chairman, Telangana Co- operative Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. Madhusudhan Reddy Pasunoor, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. M Venkat Divakar, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I I HIGH COURT DATED: 1211112025 ORDER CRP.No.2205 of 2023 .) \. --\'i \, ,'ii ($ 12 ETC 2$fi .:- / ti '\L DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS lN' Ito y9,