The High Court · 2024

'1 . Shri Satyanarayan Soni, (dead as per LR Resp No.4) 2. Mukunddas Soni, S/o Purushothamdas Soni Aged about 53 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No.4-7-290, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad.

3. Anita Soni, Wo lvlukunddas Soni, Aged about 50 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No.4-7-290, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad.

4. Ramesh Chandra Soni, S/o, Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Business, H. No. 15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad. The Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the present revision. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 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 suspend the impugned orders dated 26 March 2024 passed in lA No. 285 ot 2024 in OP No. 1662 of 2012 by the learned lX Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the present Revision in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. AADESH VARMA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. MANJARI GANU The Court made the following: ORDER ( t THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CwIL REVISION PETITION No.1794 of 2024 ORDER: This revision petition is hled challenging the order dated 26.O3.2024 passed in I.A.No.285 of 2024 in O.P.No.1662 of 2Ol2 on the hle of IX Additional Clhief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that tht: petitioners herein frled Tr.OP.No. 1662 of 2OI2 under Section 34 read with 31 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. In the sajd OP., they also lrled I.A.No.285 of 2024 under Order VI Rulc 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') seeking to amend the prayer portion in the original petition by r tdding the proposed amendment in continuation of the ltrayer. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed tl-re said I.A. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed. 2

3. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for revision petitioners, and Smt. Manjari Ganu, learned counsel for respondents.

4. l,earned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition filed seeking to amend the prayer clause to reconstruct thc Trust Deed, and stated that the same is necessary due to the death of Respondent No. 1, who was in possession of the original Trust Deed. He further contended that the amendment is not belated, as held by the trial Court, and that alternate relief can be sought at any stage to meet the ends of justice. He lamented that the trial Court failed to appreciate the reasons for incorporating alternate relief and passed a non-speaking order without applying its mind, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, sctting aside the order dated

26.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.285 of 2024 in O.P.No.1662 of 20t2.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned _w 3 counsel for petitioners and contended that the IA., filed by the petitiorrers for amendment is mala fide, and intended to cover up their own laches and lacunae, and also to delay and protracl the case by harassing the respondents. She lamented that allowing amendments after trial has commenced is not permissible under CPC and settled legal principles, and that the proposed amendment is not an alternate rclief, but rather an attempt to introduce distinct and separate reliefs. She pointed out that the petitioners failed to take any steps to amend the original petition for seven years after the death of respondent No.l in the year 201-7, an-d that respondent No.4, who is thr: sole legal representative of respondent No. 1, does not have custody of the original documents, which are allegedly r:reated and concocted. 'lherefore, while advocating that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the impugned order, she prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted lhat the original petition hled by the petitioners is of the year 2Ol2 and, the amendment petition was {iled by them very 4 recently, i.e., only in the year 2024, contending that respondent No.1 died in the year 2Ol7 due to which the relief can be altered, whereas, it is the specihc stand of respondents that no steps were taken in this regard by the petitioners for a period of seven long years, so as to seek alternate relief. However, at this stage, it is imperative to note that the original petition is now at the stage of advancing arguments and it is evident lhat there is no due diligence placed by petitioners for filing the amendment petition, as such, it can be observed that the trial Court has rightly discussed all the aspects in proper manner.

7. Though learned counsel for petitioners, placed reliance on several judgments to show that petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay in seeking amendment and cannot be denied, it is imperative to note that in the present case, the only ground for amendment is death of respondent No. 1 which is in the knowledge of petitioners from the year 2Ol7 itself. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground mentioned by the petitioners for the said delay in seeking amendment. Further, though learned counsel for petitioners relied on several other judgments, it is pertinent *ry.@y 5 to observe that the lacts of the said cases are diflerent from the facts of case on hand. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the impugned order, warranting interference of this Court. There are no merits in this case and the same is liable to bc dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition rs dismissed. There shall be no ordr:r as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed ,,TRUE COPY/' SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \- SECTIO(-OFFICER To, The lX Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court' Hyderabad il" a;; inr AADESH VnnurA Advocate !9ly.9l il:;; iI ir,rri rtltnr'rLARl GANU' Advocate toPUCl Two CD CoPies 1 2 3 4 PM/gh {r' HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1794 ot 2024 ,U e ?') a rtG S r4 14 30 JtlN 206 (( , 2 o I t o | ^ -a16,r tF-O t I DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION o Y A t o\