The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further. proceedings in pursuant to orders dated 06-01-2025 in lA No.2243 of 2023 in O.S.No.230 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the lX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. { Counsel for-the Petitioner(s): Sri. D Jagadeshwar Rao Counsel for the Respondent(s): B Vamshidhar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION No.570 of 2O25 o RDER: Heard Sri D. Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record. 2- The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad, ('trial court,), in I.A.No.2243 of 2023 in o.S-No.230 of 2019, dated 06.01 .2025, wherein the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and Rule 28 of rhe Civil Rules of Practice, to amend the written statement-cum-counter-claim after paragraph No.7 of the counter claim by incorporating the proposed paragraph Nos.7A and 78 and funher, add vI (aa) after paragraph vl (a), was allowed.

3. The revision petitioners herein filed suit in o.S.No.230 of 2019 seeking eviction and recovery of arears of rent. In the said suit, the respondents herein filed written statement-cum-counter. The respondents filed I.A. under revision stating that they have filed written statement-cum- counter claim to direct the revision petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.,Ls150,000/- with interest at l8o/o per annum from the date of suit till RY,J cRP 570 202s the date of realization. The suit for eviction was decreed and the counter claim was dismissed on 07.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein filed C.C.C.A.Nos.48 and 44 of 2022 respectively. This court vide judgment dared 21.07.2022 disposed of c.c.c.A.No.44 of 2022, which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree in o.S.N o.230 of 2019 and this court vide judgment dared 31.10.2022 in c.c.c.A.No.4g of 2022, which was filed challenging the judgmenr and decree in o.s.No.230 of 2019 in respect of the counter claim, [his Court remanded the matter to the trial court for adjudication of counter claim. In c.c.c.A.No.44 of 2022, this Court passed the following order: ,r7 . issued Having regard to the same, the following directions are a o o o o 5 The total amount due including the rent for the month of July is Rs.1,42,96,024/-. This amount shall be paid in two equal instalments; first instalment shall be paid on or before 3l-07.2022 and the second instalmenr shalr be paid on or bef,ore t0.08.2022 The amount mentioned above includes GST also. The plaintiffs shall deposit the GST and furnish the receipt of such dlposit to the appellants/defendants. The appellants/defendants shall vacate the premises by 31.t2.2022. From the month of August onwards, the appeilants/defendants shall continue to pay the rent of Rs.4,93,5221- every month on or before the 7th day of every month which includes GST and maintenance. The arrears and the entire amount of monthry rents shall be paid directly to the appellants/defendants. Failing to comply with any of these directions will enabre the plaintiffs/respondents to take appropriate course of action as warranted by law. 2 i: 8- of. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.,, Recording the same, the city civil court Appeal is disposed RY,J cRP 570 2025

4. Further, it is also held that the revision petitioners herein would be liable to pay security deposit amount of Rs.15,90,000/-, when the respondents herein vacate the premises. The respondents vacated the premises on 01.11.2022. The revision petitioners filed contempt case in C.C.No.1453 of 2022 before this Court alleging that the respondents have not paid rents as per the judgment in C.C.C.A.No.44 of 2022. The respondents have filed a demand draft before this Court which showed payment of excess rents and this Court vide order dated 1t.07.2023 in the said Contempt proceedings passed the following order: "Sri chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent produced Demand Draft bearing No.010025 dated 10.7.2023 for an amount of Rs.26,2l,BB6l- drawn on HDFC Bank dated 10.7.2023 and submits that this amount is in addition to the amount already paid in compliance with the directions issued. Said statement of learned senior counsel is disputed by Ms. vedula chitralekha, leamed counsel appearing for respondents. Learned senior counsel is requested to handover the demand draft to the learned counsel for petitioners and leamed counsel for petitioners shall ascertain as to any additional amount is due and shall file a calculation memo to the respondent. on receiving such a memo, respondent shall veriff and if any amount is due, same shall be paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of calculation memo. on the contrary, if the amount paid is in compliance with the directions of this Court after deducting the taxes and no additional amount is to be paid, the same 3 i I i RY,J , ) cRP 570 2025 information shall be furnished to the petitioners within the time specified above. It is further clarified that if any excess amount is paid, same shall be adjusted in the pending counter claim. Regarding refund of money, parties are at liberty to exchange memos expressing their respective stands and the same shall be subject matter of pending counter claim. The demand draft is handed over to the learned counsel for petitioners. List on 16.8.2023."

5. The case of the respondents is that they have paid excess amount of Rs.18,36,410/- to the revision petitioners. Therefore, a memo vzde USSR No.977ll of 2023 dated 03.10.2023 in C.C.No.l453 of 2022 is filed informing about excess amount paid, but the revision petitioners have not refunded the same, when the respondents vacated the premises on

01.11.2022. In view of non-refunding of the security deposit and the excess amount paid, the respondents are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.18,36,4101- from the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and the security deposit as well. Therefore, for proper adjudication of the counter claim and to avoid multiplicity of disputes, it is pleaded that payment of excess amount, which is to be refunded and payment of the security deposit are to be added to the counter claim as additional prayer

6. The said petition was opposed by the revision petitioners before the trial Court on the grounds that the proposed amendment is against the order passed by this Court while remanding the suit only to the extent of 4 RY,J cRP 570 2025 adjudication of counter claim in respect of C.C.C.A.No.48 of 2022- The proposed amendments are subsequent to passing of the judgment and decree by the Court and therefore, the proposed amendments are devoid of merits. According to the revision petitioners, in case the amendments are allowed it will revert back original cause of action which can-not be done in the suit. Further, it is pleaded that amendment if any has to be carried out before commencement of trial. However, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 permits to seek amendment if the party in spite of due diligence could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. According to the revision petitioners, cogent reasons are not shown for seeking amendment and sought for dismissal of the I.A.No.2243 of 2023.

7. Upon considering the contentions of both the parties after extensively referring the case laws, the trial Court allowed the I.A. under revision filed seeking amendment, teading to flling of the present revision petition.

8. In the grounds of revision petition, it is submitted that no amendment can be done after commencement of trial unless party shows that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. The proposed amendment is an event subsequent to decreeing of the suit ln O.S.No .230 of 2Ol9 dated 07 .03.2022, therefore, .tth{ RroRosed amendment will create new cause of action for filing fresh ./ \ I I i I I i ! k :.. RY,J T cRP 570 2025 suit. In C.C.C.A.No.48 of 2022, this Court by order dated 31.10.2022 remanded back the counter claim for the trial Court to answer issue No.4 and the parties were at liberty to lead evidence and raise all the pleas. By way of the proposed amendment, the nature of the counter claim would be changed thereby creating a new cause of action, which is forbidden under Order VI Rule 17of the C.P.C. It is alleged that the application itself is per se illegal filed ignoring the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia as to when the amendment should be allowed. The scope of the remand will be enlarged by the proposed amendment, as such prayed to allow the present revision.

9. During arguments, leamed counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the amendment is untenable as the same changes the nature of the counter claim which is filed by the respondents seeking their relief against the revision petitioners. Further; it is contended that the amendment can only be done prior to commencement of the trial and only such amendments are perrnitted, where the nature of the suit does not change. In that regard, reliance is placed on case between Basavaraj v. Indirar, wherein it is held that as per proviso of Order VI Rule l7 of the C.P.C., no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the party coulcl ' eozq 3 scc 705 \ 6 I not have raised the same before the commencement of trial and due RY,J cRP 570 2025 : diligence is also shown.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the revision on the ground that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, as the amendment can be permitted at any stage when the amendment was due to subsequent cause and to avoid further litigation. It is contended that amendment should be permitted, if the Court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, the party praying for the same shall suffer irreparable loss and injury 1 1. When the present revision is considered in the backdrop of its legal history, the suit is filed for eviction followed by filing of counter claim. Then, suit has been decreed and counter claim has been dismissed. Then, C.C.C.A.Nos.44 and 48 of 2022 are filed and are disposed off. It is seen that the amendment sought could not have been carried out at the stage of trial for the simple reason that the need for amendment arose only after the disposal of the C.C.C.A.No.44 of 2022, wherein direction was given for payment of arrears of rent in two installments. During such payments excess amounts were paid and further, security deposit was not paid. In that regard memos were sought to be exchanged. In view of these developments which occurred subsequent to the disposal of C.C.C.A.No.44 of 2022, there was no occasion for the respondents to carry out the \ 7 I !r RY,J T\I cRP 570 2025 amendment prior to the commencement of trial of the suit. The amendment is with respect to events after disposal of the suit by the trial Court and after disposal of the appeals by this Court. Therefore, it does not stand to reason that the amendment ought to have been carried out prior to commencement of trial.

12. The contention of the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner is that the excess amounts paid would give raise to new cause of action and therefore, new suit has to be filed. Such a course of action would be nothing, but abuse of Court process leading to multiplicity of litigations When the counter claim is still pending, when there are claim and counter claim and when the claim of the respondents is already affirmed, no prejudice would be caused if the said claim is adjudicated in the counter claim. Further, this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 in C.C.No.1453 of 2022 passed the following order: "[t is further clarified that if any excess amount is paid, same shall be adjusted in pending counter claim. Regarding refund of money, parties are at liberty to exchange memos expressing their respective stands and the same shall be subject matter of pending counter claim..-.1'-

13. As per the above order, there is clear direction to adjudicate the excess amount paid in pending counter claim. Further, with respect of refund of money, it is directed that the parties have to exchange memos and \'/\8 RY,J cRP 570 202s their respective stands shall be subject matter of counter claim. This order is passed on I I .07.2023. In case, the stand of the revision petitioner is that a fresh suit has to be filed with regard to excess amounts, the order dated

11.07.2023 in C.C.No.1453 of 2022 ought to have been challenged. Since there is no challenge to the said order, the said order has become final. Only pursuant to the said order, the respondents have filed the I.A. under revision to comply with the order of this Court. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no merits in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 06.01 .2025 in I.A.No.2243 of 2023 in o.S.No.230 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. I SD'-B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR L\ //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri. D Jagadeshwar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. B Vamshidhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. vln/ABK Mh4r HIGH COURT DATED:1411012025 ORDER CRP.No.570 ot 2025 , '\ tlF- S]n o * 1 7 JAN ?026 .7 'r-'li'.: DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION. d3 Ia. &s