The High Court · 2025

3. Budidi Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late B. Venkat Reddy, R:/o. Flat No.201 , Santosh Castle 3, Defence Colony, Kalmanghat, Hyderabad

4. Budidi Nanda Reddy, Sio. Late B. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Plot No. 464,465, Prashanth Nagar Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad

5. Budidi Ram Reddy, S/o. Late B. Venkat Reddy, R/o. lndrasprastha Enclave, Mansoorabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

6. R. Lalitha, Wo. R. Linga Reddy, D/o. Late B. Venkat Reddy, R/o. H.No 8/33, Ramidi Malla Reddy Nagar Colony, Almasguda, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Petitioners 2 to 6 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole petitioner as per C.O. dt. 11 .3.2025 vide lA No. 5 oI 2023) ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT AND Akula Vijaya Laxmi, Wo. Somaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Household, Resideni 6f H.NO.,11-1 16, Shanthinagar, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in A.s.No. 16112012 before the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar. Hyderabad pending disposal of the main revlsion, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri Avancha H Chakravarthy Counsel for the Respondents: K. Krishna Shrawan The Court made the following: ORDER ,._i t ..,. .., ., '/., I THE HONOURABLE Dr..luSttCtr G.RADIIA RANI CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION No.l390 of 2021 ORDER: This civil Revision petition is filed by the petirioner - respondent - appellant aggrieved by the order dated26.07.z02l passed in I.A.No.707 of 2016 in A.S.No.l6l of 2012 by the rearned II Additionar District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. The revision petitioner is the appellant - defendant in o.S.No.3 of 2002. During the pendency of this revision, the revision petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 6.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that o.S.No.3 of 2002 was fired by the respondent - plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sare dated

23.06.1995 and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule rands. 'fhe trial court after full-fledged trial, decreed the suit by its judgment dated 16.04.2012. Against the judgment and decree, the petitioner herein preferred appeal vide A.S.No.l6l of 2012 on the fire of the rearned III Additional Districr & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. During the pendency ofthe said appear, the respondent filed a petition under order vI Rule l7 and Rule 28 of civil Rules of practice read with section l5l of cpC seeking :ie'.i;,r i.n4f. 2 F! Dr.GR& J crp_1390_202 t to amend the eastcrn side boundary of the suit schedule property. The said petition was allowed by the lower Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - respondcnt - appellant preferred this revision.

4. Heard Sri Avancha H.Chakravarthy, leamed counscl tbr the petitioner and .Sri K.Krishna Shrawan. leamed counsel for the respondcnt.

5. Leamed counsel lor the petitioner _ defendant submined that under Order VI Rule 17 of CP(t. an amendment need to be made at pretrial stage, but not Post trial. The petition was filed by the respondent - praintirr- at a belated srage after a lapse of l.l years. The respondent _ plaintiff had given common boundaries for two separate survey numbers. The appeal vras filed in the year 2012' But the respondent had not taken any steps immediatcry for firing such application in 2012 itsetf, which would show that she was negligenr. The conduct of the partics would need to be taken into consideration whire deciding such applications and prayed to set aside the order passed by the lower Appellate court in I.A.No.707 of 2016 in A.S.No..16l of 2012 dated26.07.202r on the file of the leamed Ir Additionar District & sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. Hyderabad. 6' Leamed counsel for the respondent - plaintiff on the other hand contended that while preparing the arguments in the appear, it was noticed that at the time of firing of the suit, a ty4sraphicar mistake has been occurred in { _-, --__,_ - dd&e*' ".'_?i;flt,i respect o[ the eastem side boundary of the suit schedule property. The same was mentioned as Bandi Yellaiah and others instead of Bandi Yettaiah and others. The name of Bandi Yettaiah was also mentioned in the notice given to the defendant on27.06.2001. No prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner herein by allowing the send amendment. The lower Appellate Court had not committed any error in passing the said order and prayed to dismiss the revrslon. 7 . Perused the record

8. As the record would disclose that the suit was filed showing the schedule of property as agricultural land. bearing ghut Survey No.3l9 to an extent of Ac.3-00 acres or its sub-survey numbers 319/a. 3191e, 3l9lee, 3191u, 3l9lu.u and 319iru, total to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas and ghut survey No.335 to an extent ol Ac.2-00 guntas or its sub-survey number 335/e total measuring Ac.5-00 guntas situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District, bounded by North: Land ofBudidi VenkatReddy. South: Land of Bandi Ramulu. East: Land of Bandi Yellaiah and others. West: Land of B.Sathyanarayana Reddy. 9 The contention of the leamed counsel for the respondent was that the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property was shown as land of Bandi / {ril: \ Dr.GR& J crp_1J90_202I Yellaiah and others instead of Bandi yeftaiah and others. rt was a typographical mistake because the notice given to the defendant on 27.06.2001 also would disclose the name of the eastem side boundary owner as tsandi yettaiah. l0' considering the said contentions of the Ieamed counsel for the responden! as the same is onll'a typographicar mistake and no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner - defcndanr _ appellant herein by allowing such amendment' this .ourt considers that there is no error committed by the rower Appellate court in permitting the respondenr - praintiff for amending the eastern side boundary as Bandi yettaiah and others in prace of Bandi yellaiah and others. I l ' In the resurt, the civir Revision petition is dismissed confirming the order of the leamed III Additional Disrrict & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad passcd in I.A.No.707 of 2016 rn A.S.No.16l of 2012 dated 26.07 .2021 No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\ I' \ ECTION OFFICER To, t. The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B,Nagar, Hyderabad ,/

2. One CC to Sri Avancha 3 one cc to Sri* *,,"n"f.'nlllll,lTlJ;J,1ffi'r", 4. Two CD Copies J \ kk/psl i HIGH COURT DATED: 1 0104t2025 6 ft{ \) G o(J t 16 JUL 206 z I I * 0r^_!) p./ x .-a! ORDER CRP.No.1390 of 2021 Dismissing the Civil Revision Petition €-r+ \odt>