The High Court · 2025

I Smt._B Amrutha, Wo B Sham Rao, Hindu, Age. 6g years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Ftat No 201, Sham.E.lc_lave, Opp. Arya Simai frl5nJir,'Sufta^ B;;;, "' Badichowdl, Hyderabad ( IS)

10. Smt. D. J_amuna, Wo Dr. D Krishna Kumar, Hindu, Aqe: 64 vears. Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.'l-9-34/tu9, (New No.2B90), firri Nrgr'r, HV.ie]J6rO

11.9mt. V Vara Lakshmi W./9y_T, Ra1 Gopat, Hindu, Age 54 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H.No 181 2RT, Vilaynajar Cotony, H-yOeraOLO_SiO-OOS '12 Malla Reddy, Slo not known, Hindu, Age: 6g years, Occ: Service, R/o H.No.1_ 7-40211 , Near Bommatagudr, Bakaraml Dayaia Market R""d, Htij;;#;'" ' (TS)

13. S. Rama Rao, S/o not known, Hrndu, Age:64 years, Occ: Service, R/o H.No.1_ 7 -4021 1, Baka rani, Near Bommaragud i, bayaia tvtaiket noaa, H-yo".olo.' 14. Smt. Padmini, Wo Shri Han prasad, Hindu, Age 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Flat No 303, Sai Krishna Residence, Aravind Na{ar C6fony, Hy-#rab;;. 15 Smt Mallika, Wo Shri Rama Krishna, Hindu, Age. 39 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Ftat No 204, Sai Krishna Residence, Aravrn"d frfagdrColbny,lrd;; %;k"' Road, Hyderabad-27. '16 P..Arvind Kumar, S/o p pruthvrral, Hindu, Age.50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-2-23418/F Sai Krrshna R6sidency, fiat No'aO+, nrvind G;r;;;il;;, lndira Park Road. Hyderabad-27 (TS) " '17 Pasham Dilp Raj, S/o Late pasham prudhvi Ral. Aoe: 4q years, Occ. private Employee. R/o H. No. 1 -7- 1 B 1 /3. Bakaram. HyOe'rin5O.

18. Pasham Anand Rai. s/o Late pasham prudvi Rai, Age: 46 years. occ: private Employee, R/o H No I-Z-tItt3-Baiirr.. iVO"IlOjO

19. Smt. Deepika W/o Srinivas D/o Late pasham prudhvi Rai. Aqe: 47 vears Occ. Private Emptoyee. R/o H No.1_ 7-181t3, eafjram, H'yde-rIOrO.'""'"' Respondent no.B, 10, j2, 14 and 15 are not necessary pa(ies) ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of rhe petition, in" Higt court may oL p6rr"J t" stay all f^urther proceedings in o S No 04 of 2008 on ihe file of lX Adoitional chief Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad, pending disposar of the Revision in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.A.Achuthanand counsel for the Respondents No.2,3 and 6: sri vedura srinivas, senior Counsel for Sri Vedula Chitralekha Counsel for Respondent No.9: Sri Mallesh Rao Counsel for Respondent No.11: Keerthi Arun Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.13: Giri Krishna Counsel for Respondent Nos 4,5,7,16-19: --- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CrVIL REVISION PETITION No.3895 of 2o23 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 1A.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.2045 of 2023 in O.S.No.04 of 2008 by the IX- Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. I.A.No.2045 of 2023 was hled by the plaintiff to amend the plaint and also schedule'A', schedule B', schedule'D'and schedule 'E'propertics. The suit is hled for partition against the respondents for schedules A, B D and E properties, the evidence of both the parties was completed ald the case was posted for argumen ts. It is stated that there are certain typographical mistakcs in the plaint and in para 4 item 1 tlle extent of Iand was shown as 12OO Sq yards, inadvertent omission regarding extent of land and in line No.7 of page I door number is mentioned as 1O2O234113/4614 instead of 1- 1-234/13/46/4 and sought to amend schedule 1\' property mentioning as 12O0 Sq Yds and also in para No.7 line No.4 in schedule ?' property door number was referred as 1-2- 2 234/13F instead of l-2-234/13/F, reference to 20 flats and 1 to 4 instead of municipal No.t-2-234/13/F/I, l_2_ 234/ 13/F /2, 1-2_234 / 13 /F /3, r_2_234/F /4, 1_2_234/ ls /E with reference to the shops, petitioner referred to 20 flats with stilt parking plus five floors,,' but in the description, flat Nos. 1O1 to 1O4 is shown as ground floor instead of first floor, flat Nos.201 to 2O4 is shown as first floor instead of second floor, flat Nos.3ol to 3O4 is shown as second floor instead of third floor, flat Nos.4ol to 4O4 is shown as third floor instead of fourth floor, flat Nos.Sol to 5O4 is shown as fourth floor instead of frfth floor with boundaries, stated as Arvind Nagar colony road instead of 40' wide road and sought to amend the schedule A'in item No. 1, line No.7 may be corrected as l_2_ 234 / 13 / 46 I 4 instead of tO2o234 / 13 / 46 / 4.

3. It is further stated that para No.7, Lirle 4 may be corrected as 1-2-234 / 13/F insread of t-2-234 / 13F, with reference to the 20 flats. Thereafter M.No. 1-2-234/13lF/1,1_ 2-234 / t3 I F / 2, r -2-234 I F / 3, 1 _2_234 I 1 3 / F I 4, 1 _2_234 / 13 / F instead of I to 4 with reference to the shops. Schedule A, property, Line No.3 may be amended as "First Floor,, instead of Ground Floor, Line No.5 may be amended as "second Floor,, 3 o instead of first floor, Line No.7 may be amended as ',Third Floor" instead of Second Floor, Line No.9 may be amended as "Fourth Floor" instead of third floor, Line No.l 1 may be amended as hfth floor" instead of Fourth Floor. In Line No. 15, the door numbers may be amended as ,'M.No.1-2- 234113 /F, r-2-234/ 13lFlr, t_2-234/ 13lF/2, 1_2_234/ ts/F/3, t_2_ 234/13/F14, l-2-234/13/F" insread of t-2-234/13F, 1 to 4. Similarly after the door number, the extent of propert5r may be mentioned as "12OO Sq. Yds". Eastern side boundary may !e corrected as 4O' wide road instead of Arvind Nagar Colony road. It is also stated that in para 3 in line S and para 4 item 3 line 2, para No. 13, Iine No.3 door number as l-7-1g1/1 to 31, 1-7-181 and 1-1-181/ 1 to 31. In Schedule ,C, propertjr with reference to door number ald the western side boundary, it is mentioned as 1-7- 18 1 /A instead of 1-7- 1g I . [n schedule 'B' property, the door number of 1, 2, Open/234113/ 1OlA is not mentioned and on the eastern side boundary, it is mentioned as l-2-234 /13/ 1O and t-2-234 /13/A, instead of "1-2-234/13/ 10" and prayed to amend para 3, para 4 item 3, Schedule B' propert5r, eastern side boundary and schedule C, Property and western side boundary and it is mentioned as 1_ 2-Open/234/ 13/ lO/4 eastern boundary as t_2_234/ 13l 70 4 a instead of 1-2-234l13ll and l-2-234 113/A' Eastern boundary may be corrected as " l-2-234 /13/ 1O" instead of 1- 2-234113/10 and l-2-234 113/A Northern side boundary may be corrected as "H.No-i-2-234/1313615 (Neighbour's Property) instead of open land of P' Rama Murthy' The western side boundary may be corrected as propert5r of "Bharathamma" instead of Buffalo shed of Kumara Swamy The door numbers may be corrected as " l-7-l8l ll, l-7- r-7-181 12, r-7-rarl2A, 1-7't8r/3, t-7' r-7-r8r/4lrlGF" 4 tsllrlAl t, 181/3/GF, t-7-r8r142, t-7-r811412, instead of l-7-l8ll1 to 31, 1-7-181 and Western boundary of schedule 'C' Property may be corrected as "1-7-181" instead of l-7-l8l/A of P' Rama Murthy' It is further stated that in schedule 'D' property, the typographical mistake occurred regarding total extent as 15O Sq yards instead of 110 Sq Yds and the door number is mentioned as l-1-181/1 to 31. 1-740211 instead of l-7-4O2, the northern boundary is shown as l-7-4O2I3 instead of "Neighbour House", southern boundary is shown as l-7'4O21 1 instead of "Neighbour House" western side, it is shown as temple "Neighbour House" and hence, requested to amend the prayer instead of 5

5. Heard Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and

6. The contcntion of learned counsel for the petitioner therein is that there is no change in the claim cxcept correcting the mistakes with reference to door numbers, extent, boundaries and entitlement of shares etc' Moreover, this being a partition suit, if it is not corrected at this stage, iL will be difhcult as warrant cannot be executed without door numbers. There is no counter filed by the respondEnts The trial Court dismissed the petition stating that petitioner is seeking to change the number of the floors in the plaint and also to amend the boundaries, house numbers of all the schedule properties which will lead to changing the identity of property. If the petition is allowed, petitioner may again request the Court to permit her to adduce additional evidence, over amend.ment of pleadings and it would cause further delay in disposal of the suit which is ltled in the year 2OO8 and now which is posted for arguments. The amendment of pleadings II ) 6 cannot be entertained alter commencement of trial and dismissed the petition

7. The furttrer contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent Nos. 1,2,3,8,9, 10 and 11 are the brothers and sisters ofthe petitioner. Respondent No.l died and respondents 16 to 19 are the children of respondent No. 1, respondent Nos.4 to 7 are the wife ald children of 4s brother of petitioner, and petitioner is the daughter of late P.Balakrishna, who instituted the suit for partition in respect of Schedule 'A to E' properties and petitioner is entitled to I / 6th share in the schedule properties. During ttre trial, which began in 2O08, tJle plaintiff examined PWs. 1 to 3, while defendant No.2 is Dw.3, defendant No. 13 is Dw.4 and defendant No.9 is Dw.5. The petitioner discovered alleged partition deeds and gift deeds between the parties on the Stamps and Registration website during the cross-examination o[ defendant No.9. These documents, marked as Exs.A-26 to A-32, were previously unknown to the plaintiff. The Court failed to consider that the schedule properties remained unchanged, and the parties' defenses did not alter. The petitioner filed an application 7 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C, on 30.10.2023, to amend the plaint's incorrect property descriptions, which did not delay the proceedings.

8. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Court in MANU AP 3761 12013, wherein it is observed that correctness of amendment cannot be the basis to adjudicate the dispute under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. In case, if such dispute is there, apparently, the written statement could be hled by the parties. When there is no change in the nature of thc suit, the application for amendment has to be allowed, when it deals with real controversy between the parties and the controversy is a basic cardinal test and primary duty of the Court to decide whether amendment is necessary. As such, prayed this Court to ailow this revision by setting aside the order impugned.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would submit that while filing amendment petition there are changes in boundaries of the property. In a suit if the boundaries of immovable property are changed, certainly it will cause prejudice to the respondents. In support of his 8 contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basavraj Vs Indira and Othersr wherein, in para 16 it is observed as under : "16. In the case in hand, the compromise decree was passed on I4-1O-2OO4 in which the plainLiffs were party. The application for amendment of the plaint was fi.led on 8-2-2OlO i.e. 5 years and 03 months after passing of the compromise decree, which is sought to be challenged by way of amendment. The hmitation for challenging any decree is three years (reference can be made to Article 59 in Part fV of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963). A fresh suit to challenge the same may not be maintainable. Meaning Jhereby, the relief sought by way of amendment was time- barred. As with the passage of tine, right had accrued in favour of the appellant with reference to challenge to the compromise decree, ttte same cannot be taken away. In case the arnendment in the plaint is allowed, this will certainly cause prejudice to the appellant. What cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly."

10. In the above judgment it was observed that it is a time barred application, whereas in the present case, the suit is at the stage of arguments and order under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C, is maintainable for amendment before commencement of trial. Learned counsel further contended that the trial is ' zoz+ 1s1 scc zos almost completed and it is at the stage of arguments and petitioner herein tried to change the nature of property itself which cannot be considered. As such, the trial Court has rightly dismrssed the petition and prayed the Court to dismiss this revision.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel and the material on record, the amendment petition is hled by the petitioner in the trial Court for change of door numbers and also floor numbers. Going through the petition filed by the petitioner in the trial Court, wherein in Line No.7 of Pa.ge No.1 of plaint it was mentioned as lO2O234l 13/46/4 instead of 1-1-23a/13/46/4 which reflects that instead'of "-", they :used "Zero" and in subsequent door numbers also instead of 13/F, it is mentioned as 13F which are simple corrections in the door numbers and also floor numbers 1O1 to lO4 was \ mistakenly shown as ground floor instead of first floor and so on. The plaint itself reflects it as ground floor and that 1 ) mistake was carried out upto 5Ol to 5O4 as 4th floor, which will not change the nature of property and furt]rermore, the counsel for defendants in the trial Court reported no counter and all these amendments sought are only clerical mistakes, -,s.i-- _ r:-1 : :8.& 10 r\ where, the door numbers and floor numbers are not properly mentioned. Furthermore, this is a suit for partition and both the parties are entitled for shares, if the Court decrees the suit. If the door numbers are not correctly mentioned, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. If there is any grievance for the respondents, they can file additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. Hence, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.2045 of 2023 in O.S.No.O4 of 2O08 by the IX-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, CTION OFFICER

1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri R.A Achuthanand, Advocate IOPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Vedula Chitralekha, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Sri C.Mallesh Rao, Advocates[Opuc] 5. One CC to Sri Keerthi Arun Kumar, Advocate.[OPUCJ 6. One CC to Sri P Giri Krishna, Advocate tOpUCI 7. Two CD Copies kant f* t HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 ORDER GRP.No.3895 of 2023 .;18 S i;] r6: 2-ca '( 21FEB zffi I +) (,) \. -/,t. \ir..' t-,\.I ..r,,, ,rcaZo t ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION q. -dta -ft-