The High Court · 2025

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 extend the interim stay granted on 07 -03-2024 till the date of hearing of main Revision i.e. CRP No. 368 2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 of all further proceedings in OS No.11112010 on the file of XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI N. ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: ATIKAM SRINIVAS GOUD The Court made the following ORDER: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CryIIT- REVISION PETITION No.368 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing Order dated

21.12.2023 in LA.No.2266 of 2023 in O.S.No.l11 of 2010, passed by the XXVI Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order V[ Rule I 7 of CPC r/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Srinivas Goud, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

3. Petitioner herein is defendant No.2, respondent Nos. I to 3 are plaintifts and respondent No.4 is defendant No.1 in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision petition are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit vide O.S.No. I I I of 2010, against the petitioner and respondent No.4 for partition and separate possession ofthe suit schedule property and the said suit was dismissed for default on 22.02.2018; that respondent Nos. I to 3 ftled an application vile I.A.No.635 of 2018 lor restoration of the suit and the same was allowed and suit was restored ) \ 2 I,NA, J CRP No.368 ot202a on 31.01.2023; that after r.estoration of the suit, evi<lence on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3/plaintiffs was concluded ard evidence on behalf of defendants commenced and that when the r.ratter was at trre stage of cross-examination of D.W. l. petitioner fi1e,1 an application for amendment of the written sratem ent vide I.A.No 2266 of 2023. 5. Respondents No.l to 3 fited the counter affi<lavit resisting the said application.

6. The trial Couft, on due consideration ol- pleadings and contentions put forth by both the parlies, dismissccl the application vide imptgned Order dated 21.12.2023, with an c,bservation that petitioner sought amendlnent to incorporate the f.act c I passing of the decree in O.S.No.736 of 20ll filed by him and pr.rrsuant thereto, delivery cf possession theicoi'to hiin an,i fuither <it,sei"red that the same can be proved by producing certified copv of the decree, Panchanama and other ccrtified documents at-rd no further amendment is required to prove such facts. Aggrie.,red by the same, present revision petition is filed. 7. Leamed Counsel for the petitioner woul<l submit that respondent Nos.l to 3 filed suit vide O.S.No. I l1 of 2010, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, I 3 LN,4, J CRP.No.366 oJ2024 whereas, the petitioner filed a ,ui.t vtde o.s.No.736 0f 20il for recovery of possession and damages in respect of the same schedule property and the same was decreed on 22.03.201g; that petitioner filed E.P.No.405 of 2022 for execution of the decree and the possession of the property was delivered to the petitioner by the Bailiff of the Court on 10.09.2022. under panchanama and receipt, which was signed by respondent Nos.l to 3/plaintiffs and legal heir of respondent No.4 i.e., respondent No.5. He further submitted that these subsequent developments are crucial and necessary for proper adjudication of the suit, therefore, petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement for incorporating para Nos. l4(a) and 14(b). However, the trial court, without considering the facts, nature of the suit and subsequent developments, dismissed the application with perverse observations. He further submitted that respondent Nos.l to 3 are seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property, whereas, possession of the said property was already detivered to the petitioner on 10.0g.2022 pursuant to order passed in E.p.No.405 of 2022 and therefore, the said facts and events are necessary to be incorporated in the written .statement and as such, the proposed amendment is required for ) ) 4 LNA, J CW.,\o J68 oI202J proper adjudication ofthe contro\/ersy betweeu the pe.n.ies and prayed to allow the revision petition.

8. Learncd Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the judgments of tht' Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (h't-) Ltd,,t and Ragu Thikrli D.Iohn Vs. S.Ra.yappan und others2.

9. Per contra, leamed Counsel lor lespondent Nos 1 and 2 would submit that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the ,rpplication since the amendtnents sought to be incorporated in the rvt itten statement are not necessary for adjudication of the suit. He luther submitted that the trial Court has rightty observed that the fact o1'passing of the decree in the suit filed by the petitioner and delivcr', of possession thereof in the E.P to the petiiiorrer cair be proved bi' pioducing the certified copy of the decree, Panchanama and other certihed documents and there is no need for amendment of statement, "vlitten that too, after completion of evidence on behalf of plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 3. He also stLbrrritted that the application was filed at belated stage, i'e., when the matter was coming up for cross-examination of D.W.1, thereftrre- the trial Court ' AtR 2oo l scc 3295 r AIR 2oo l scc 699 I I 5 LNA, J CRP No.368 oI2024 rightly dismissed the application and no grounds are made out to interfere with the well-reasoned Order passed by the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

10. Perusal of the record discloses that the suit schedule property in OS.No.lll of 2010 filed by respondenr Nos.l to 3 and in O.S.No.736 of 2011 filed by petitioner is one and the same, nevertheless, they were filed seeking altogether distinct reliefs. The suit-OS.No.l I I of 2010 tiled by respondenr Nos.l to 3 was dismissed for default on 22.02.20 l8 and later, on an application, the suit was restored on 3 l.0l .2023. In the interregnum period, i.e., on

22.03.2018, the suirOS.No.736 of 20tl filed by the petitioner for recovery ol possession and damages in respect ol the suit schedule propefty was decreed and pursuanr to the orders passed in EP.No.405 of 2022, possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the petitioner on 10.08.2022 under panchanama by the bailiff of the Court. Thus, all these events happened subsequent to filing of written statement by the petitioner in OS.No. I I I of 2010, therefore, there cannot be any occasion or chance for the petitioner to bring the said falts to the notice of the Court by incorporating the same in the .I written statement. Though the petitioner filed the application for \ 6 CRI' io.J63 aI202a amendment of the rvritten statement at a belated sttrg-,, merely on the ground of delay, when no serious prejudice is sairl to be caused to respondent Nos. I and 2/plaintiffs, the said appli:atiorr cannot. be .ejected. Thc petitioner is seeking to incorporate o.rr the events that happened subsequent to filing of the suit-OS.No. I I I ol20l0, which in fact, are the proceedings in another suit. probahl.,, thc petitioner intends to project or substantiate his case on the basis of thc proceedings in OS.No.736 of 201 l. Moreover, sinc.t. rlrc suit schcdule property in both the suits is one and the same, th is Courl is of the opinion that the amendment of' the written staterne nt sought for. by the petitioner is necessary for determining thc r.al question in controversy between the parties and at no strctch oj irnagination, the same can cause injustice or prejudice to the other sirit antl hence. the same has to be allowed. ll. The aforesaid view of this Court is lortified bi.rhe.ludgrnent of the I{on'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance CorJrc.,ration ol tndia Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt Ltdr, reiterating the principle laid down in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K.Modi ', observed as hereunder:- I I r 2022 SCC Online SC I128 ' lzoor; a scc :ss I I 7 CRP No.368 of 2021 "All amendments necessary for determining the rettl queslion in controversy should be allowed, provided they do nol cause injustice or prejudice to the olher side. It is mandatory &u to the use of the word 'shall' in the lotter parl of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Courts should adopt a liberal approach especially when the opposite porly can be compensated by costs. Amendmenls should be allowed if they do not result in irreparoble prejudice, divest a secured advance, or inlroduce a time-barred claim that divests un accrued right. Delay alone is not a sufrcient gr<;und to disallow an omendmenl. "

12. In the light of the alorcsaid judgrncnt, this Court is o[ considered opinion that the observation of the trial Court in the impugned order that the proposed amendrnent ol the written statement would cause prejudice to the plaintifls and lurther, the petitioner did not act with due diligence and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to amendment of the written statement is not sustainable.

13. Accordingly, this Revision is allowed and the Order dated

21.12.2023 in I.A.No.2266 of 2023 in O.S.No. I I I of 2010, passed by the XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside and consequently, IA.No.2266 of 2023 stands a[[owed. I ) l4 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, s.hall stand closed 8 CRl' No.168 oI2021 No costs SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i I \ CTION OFFICER To,

1. B.Anil Ra1, S/o. Late B.parameshwar Raj, Aged about,4;t frs, Occ. Private Service, fuo.H.No.16_.1 1-f S2g-, a"t"u. Naqar, Malakpet, Hyderabad. pgfgmeshwar Raj, Aged about 37 yrs,

2. B Aniu @ B.Swetha. Dt 11".? Occ Househotd, R/o H No.16_1r_19/2/8, a;i;.'ilrgul. Malakpet, Hyderabad. 3. Sai Raj, S/o. Late B. parameshwar Raj, Aged about. 35 frs, occ. private Service, R/o. H. No. 1 6_ 1 1 _igiz7e, sli#. Nror r, Malakpet, Hyderabad. o Pl^r::t:l*u:I?o.(Died) perLrs., R/o H.No 16_i1_1s/2/8, - :aE9tNaSar. Matakpet, Hyderabad 5. Smt.B.Srrdevi. Wo. Late B.Farameshwar Raj, Aged ab()rrt i3 Yrs , occ:privare Service, R/o. n No to_t i-itli,,ii srr".nr Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad 9 9n" CC lo SRt N ASHO^K KUMAR Advocare (OPUC) 7. One cC ro SRt AIKAM SR|N|VAS GOUb;;r;rb (oF,LjC) 8. Two CD Copies. l CHRK/PSI, HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025 ORDER CRP.No.368 of 2024 .,aa:: .1 .. \.'- -_=-.:-- -t',, .,)-.r. 2 fl sEP 2025 ''.',', \..'4 \.i \.,-oz , \. ,-'' t -,,1)2/ .-, -=:-,/ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETIT'ION. \ pt