Heard Sri K v. Bhanu Prasad, learned Seni,or Counsel, representing Sri K. Sai Sri Harsha, leamed

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOTHAPALLI SAI SRI HARSHA Counsel forthe Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: order. THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAJ{A CML REIIISION PEIITION No.2OO9 of 2Ol8 ORDER: Challenging the order dated 29.01.2O18 passed in Memo S.R.No.4540 of 2016 in I.A.No.2O94 of 2OO3 in O.S.No.651 of 1993 by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, the present Civil Revision Petition is hled.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff No.l in the suit had passed away, and plaintiff No.2 was brought on record as his legal representative vide Orders in I.A.No.896 of 2OO9. Subsequently, plaintiff Nos.3 to 7 were also impleaded as legal representativc:; of cieceased plaintiff No. I by virtue of Orders in I.A.No. 1642 of 2Ol1 dated 22.12.2OL1. The defendant challenged tl.e said impleadment in C.R.P.No.232 of 2012, wlricln was dismissed by this Court on 14.12.2012- However, due to an oversight, these legal representatives were not impleaded in I.A.No.2O94 of 2OO3, which remained pending before this High Court. A memo dated 18. 10.2016 was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to carry out the said amendment, which N.as opposed by the defendant on the 2 SI(S,J C-LP-ro-2OOg of 20l8 grounds that rro such amehdrnent can be allowed after the statutory period of 14 days or the extended limit of 30 days under Section 148 of CPC. The defendant also argued that the eartier applications did not include any prayer to amend other pending interlocutory applications and relied on case law supporting strict time limits for amendments.

3. The Tria-l Court, vide order dated 29.01.2018 allowed the memo noting that the legal representatives had already been brought on recor.d. in the plaint and amendments had been carried out accordingly. It observed that the failure to amend I.A.No.2O94 of 2O03 was due to oversight and not willful neglige nce, and there was no substantial prejudice caused to the defendant. The trial Court further held that procedural lapses should not hinder substantive .justice, and in the interest of justice, it could exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC. Accordingly, the trial Court rejected the defendant's objection and allowed the plaintiff to carry out the necessar5r amendmer.rts in I.A.No.2O94 of 2OO3 and directed frling of a neat copy of the petition within one week. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3 SI(S,J C.EP.aao.2OO9 of 20La 4- Heard Sri K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Seni,or Counsel, representing Sri K. Sai Sri Harsha, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of t}le petitioner as well as Sri Bankat-lal Mandhani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. t earned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the triat Court is contrar5r to law, tle weight of evidence on record, and the probabilities of the case and that tJle tria.l Court has committed a grave error in taking cognizance of a mere memo fi1ed by the respondents/plaintiffs and in passing substantive orders thereon, despite threre being specific statutory provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure to seek such reliefs ttrrough properly constituted interlocutory applications. The practice of filing memos, as opposed to formal applications under relevant provisions, and seeking consequential reliefs has been consistently deprecated by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the trial Court below ought to have refused to act upon the memo and should have insisted on a regular interlocutory application being frled for the relief sought. 4 sKs,., C.RP.!Io.2OO9 of 20la

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the trial Court committed a contradiction in terms by acknowledging that it has no power under Section 148 CPC to extend time beyond 30 days for carrying out amendments, yet proceeded to allow the memo filed bry the plaintiffs which sought to do precisely that carry out an amendment to I.A.No.2O94 of 2O03 well beyond the statutorily perrnissible period. He argued that Section 148 of CPC clearly mandates that any enlargement of time granted by the Court for doing an5l act prescribed or a,llowed by the Code shall not exceed 3O days in total. Once the period of 14 days for carrying out the amendment expired, and even the extended period of 30 days lapsed without compliance or a formal application seeking further time, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the request made through a memo or to grant such relief in the absence of a properly constituted application under relevant provisions like Order W Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.

7. kar.ned Senior Cousnel contended- that the use of a memo as a procedural device in this context is not recognized under ttre CPC and is in clear derogation of settled procedural norms. Whr:n substantive relief is sought that affects the 5 SI(S,J C-R-P-No.2fi,9 o{ 2t)1a rights of ttre parties, such as impleadment or amendment, the sarne can only be sought through a regular interlocutory application which permits notice to the other side and a reasoned adjudication. Thus, perrnitting amendments in a pending interlocutory application merely on tJle basis of a memo, witJrout a proper application or compliance with statutory timelines, undermines procedural fairness arld the scheme of the CPC. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

8. On t-he other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and ttre trial Court has rightly passed the order, therefore, he prayed he Court to dismiss the petition.

9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgrnent of this Court in Muddada Appa Rao (died) and another v. M. Nagendra 6 sr(s,J C.R.P.Xo.2<XX, of 201a Prasada Rao and otfrers, wherein in paragraph No.6, it is held as under: "6. I have bestowed my attention to the facts and I have given detailed and thoughtful consideration to the submissions. The undisputed fact is that on the death of the sole plaintifi, the revision petitioners, who are his tegal representativqs, filed I-A. No. 771 of 2Ol2 requesting for their impleadment as plaintills 2 to 6 and that ttle trial Court by ttre orders dated l2-O7 -2OL3 had a-llowed U1at application and permitted the revision petitioners to come on rec.ord as plaintiffs 2 to 6. The amendment of the cause titles to t.lle plaint was not carried out. At that relevant time, ttre advocates were on strike on account of Samaikya Andhra rnovement. For wtratever reasons, the amendment of the cause title to the plaint was not carried out within a reasonable time much less within 14 days time. The Court below was of the view that in view of tlle provision of Order VI Rule 18 of the Code, the amendment ought to have been carried out within t4 days and tltat for non compliance of that requirement, the revision petitioners are precluded from carr5ring out the amendment to the plaint. Taking such a view, the trisl Court had reca ed its earlier order dated 12.07.2013 in I.A. No. 771 of 2012 and dismissed the said application, which already stood allowed. The first question, therefore, to be considered is as to whether Order VI Rute 18 of the Code is applicable to the facts of the present case. To be very fair, the leamed senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents did not 7 SKS,J C.R-P.I{o.2OO9 of 2018 advance any arguments on this aspect- As already noted, his zrrguments are two fold. I have gone through the precedents cited by the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners. Havirrg gone ttrough the precedents cited (lst, 2nd, and 3rd supra), this Court is in agreement v/ith the view that when an order is made under Order XXII Rule 3 or 4 of the Code, the said order is to be given effect to, by recording the names in tlre cause title of ttrc pleadings and that it might be done either by the parB/, who obtained the order, or by the Office of the Court and that such change in the cause title to be made, in the well considered view of this . Court, cannot be considered as an amendment of the plaint within the meaning of Order VI Rule l7 of the Code since the substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party is made to give effect to the order under Order XXII Rule 3 or 4 of the Code; and hence, Order VI Rule 18 of the Code or for that matter Order V[ Rule 17 of the Code has no application to such situation. Therefore, this Court can come to a safe conclusion that the amendment of cause title should have been dorre within 14 days as held in the orders of ttre Court below is not correct. In Sital Prasad Saxena (D) by L-Rs- v- Union of India (4) (1985) f SCC 163, it was observed that the rules of procedure Under Order XXII Code of Civil Procedure are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties."

10. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of tJ:e material available on 8 SKSr, C.R.P.Lo-2(Xr9 of 20lt record, it appears that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Ar.ticle 227 of the Constitution of India. It is undisputed that legat representatives of deceased plaintitr No. 1 were duly brought on record in the main suit and the cause title of the plaint was amended accordingly. The omission to effect a similar amendment in the pendiqg interlocutory application, I.A.No.2O94 of 2OO3, was evidently due to an oversight, and the frling of a memo to recti$ this procedural lapse, without introducing any new pleadings or claims, wzrs only for the limited purpose of conforming the record to ttre earlier judicial order under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC.

11. Further, the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion under Section 151 CPC to permit such a,rnendment, havirrg found no prejudice was caused to the defendant. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Section 148 CPC and strict timelines thereunder is misplaced in the present factual context, since the memo did not seek to introduce a substantive amendment to the pleadings but was merely a 9 SKS,J C.RP.No.2OO9 of 20l8 procedural step to reflect the legal representatives already on record. Furthermore, as held in Mud&da Appa Rao (supra), amendments to cause titles to reflect orders passed under Order XXII CPC do not attract the rigors of Order VI Rule 17 or Rule 18 CPC, and hence the memo hled cannot be treated as one seekjng an amendment of the pleadings in the technical sense. The.refore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and this Court does not irnd any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 29.O l.2O 18 passed in Memo S.R.No.454O of 2016 in LA.No.2O94 of 2OO3 in O.S.No.651 of 1993 by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER / ,ITRUE COPY//

1. V Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal t'3X3stflB$tlSmlAtt$iLo#'n?*.HA,AdvocatetoPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies 5. One SPare CoPY PB/PSL v{ HIGH COURT DATED: 09/06/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2009 of 2018 ,.!, 1" :\ .:! ..r. 'i (;) -\ 14 iiilj m ,]i DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *4 Y6* \e'