The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ih support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all furthe:r proceedings in O.S.No.188t2017 on the file of the chief Judge, city civil court; Hyderabad pending disposal of the c.R.p. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SRINIVAS CHITTURU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BS PRASAD REPRESENTING The Court marle the following: ORDER SRI ABU AKRAM t, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.822 of 2Ol9 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 25.07.2018 passed in I.A.No.2239 of 2Ol8 in O.S.No.1B8 of 2Ol7 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the application filed under Order VI Rule L7 of C.P.C for amendment of pleadings in the suit plaint

2. The petitioners are the defendants and t[re respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit i.e., O.S.No.188 of 2017. The r6spondents herein filed the above suit for recovery of Rs.83.58 crores with future interest against the respondents- defendants i.e., the petitioners. During pendency of the said suit, the respondents filed I.A.No.2239 of 20L8 to permit them to amend the plaint. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that due to typographical error the amount was mentioned as "Rs.59.O1 Crores" instead of "Rs.7B.O1 Crores", therefore, the same has to be amended. 2 .tp-822-2O19

3. The petitioners/respondents/defendants filed countl"r before the triai Court stating that the amendment sought for is mis:onceived and is not permissible under law. It is further contended that th* s;'.id suit is filed under summons procedure and no arnendment is permissible and the very suit itself is; not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the I.A.

4. Flaving heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondents, the learned Judge has come to conr:iusion that it is only typographical error and as such permitted the respondents herein to amend the plaint by mentioning the amount of Rs.78.01 crore.s in place of Rs.59.ti1 crores

5. f.ggrieved by the sarne the present Civil Revision Petition is filed contending that the amendment sought for is correct:ion of figures. It is further contended that the learned Judge ought not to have allowed the amendment petition as the ve:ry amendment for the pleadings which are intended to be brought on record would come against their own pleadings in the plarnt and the material placed on record. Therefore prayecl to allorv the C.R.P ) ,J 3 crp_822_2019

6. Heard Mr. Srinivas Chitluri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Abu Akram, learned counsel appearing for the iespondents.

7. On perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, now the point that arises for consideration before this Court is "whether the amendment permitted by the learned Judge is sustainable in law or not."

8. POINT:- Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire material placed on record the amendment which is sought for is only in respect of the correction as to the amount which is mentioned i.e, Rs.78.01 crores in place of Rs.59.O1 crores.

9. It is the case of the respondents that they filed the suit for recovery of Rs.83,58 Crores with future interest and out of which they found Rs.78.01 Crores were withdrawn by 47 cheques to the Account number and they reaJized Rs.19.OO Crores and Rs.59.01 is to be recovered and due to typographical instead of Rs.78.01 Crores, they .rnt=,*. 4 .rp_822_2O19 r' mentiorled in the plaint as Rs.59.01 Crores. Whereas, it is contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners herein that as ti:e very amendment would change entire pleadings of the plaint. It is 'icttled law that any amount of the pleadings which are made by the plaintiffs is subject to the proof and the burden would lie on the plaintiffs to prove the pleadings by way of collecting the evidence.

10. Hence, this Court feels that if the amendment as sought ior is a[ov;ed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants i.e., re,vision petitioners herein, for the reason that the reviSion petitioners/ defendants would get a chance to file re- joinder to the said amendment or by way of filing additional rirritten statement. Besides that revision petitioners/defendants also would get a chance to cross examirre the witnesses on the said aspects.

11. F'urther, it is also pertinent to mention that the amendment was sought much prior to the commencement of the triirl, as such considering all the grounds, this Court do not see any ground to interfere with the findings and the order passed by the learned Judge. Hence, for the said I / 5 ctp_822_2019 reasons, this point is answered accor,cingly in favour of the respondents against the revision petitioners. l&. In the result, this civil Revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioners/defendants are at liberty to raise all such pleadings which are available to them before the trial court by way of written statements. There shall be no order hs to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shalr stand dismissed M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ \ To, 1 The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Srinivas Chitturu, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SriAbu Akram, Advocate tOpU'C] 4. Two CD Copies - t o ABK HIGH COURT DATED: 121O9t2025 / I ORDER CRP.No.822 ot 2019 {HE S ( () 2 7 Jilt 2026 * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 0 2h