The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to siay all further proceedings in o s. No.177 of 2003 on the file of senior crvilJuJg;at Sangareddy. ' t Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri Md Ajmal Ahmed Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Tarun Madathanapally The Court made the foltowing: ORDER (\ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CML REVISION PETITION No.38Oa of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 2O.O9.2O24 in I.A.No. lO29 of 2024 in O.S.No. 177 of 2003, passed b1'the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

2. Petitioners herein have hled an application uide I.A.No.1O29 of 2024 in O.S.No. 177 of 2003, against . respondcnts under C)rder 6 rule l7 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC and rule 28 ol CRP, before the trial Court, for amendment of the plaint along with consequential amendments in O.S.No. 177 of 2O03. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides dismissed thc application. Aggrieved by the said Order, they prcferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners herein mainly contended that petitioners sought for amendment to incorporate the correct boundaries of the suit schedule properties and it is necessary for proper adjudication and determination of the real question of the matter. 'lhe nature of correction is clerical mistake, which crept in the plaint and it cannot be rcfused on l the ground of dclay, but the trial Court without appreciating the facts properly. dismissed the application. The proposed amendme nl rvor_rld not change the nature of lhe suit or pleadings and it is dssential for the effective implementation of the decree to br: passed in future and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the amendment application allowed. He also contended that citations hled by thc petitioners were not considered by the triar court. petitioners have previously filr:d the simirar application uide cFR No. r5o0'of 2020, dated t7 .l1 .2O2O even before llling of the written statement of respondent No. l, but it was misplacpd by the Registry and hence they filed I.A.No. t029 of 2024, for amendmenr ol'the plaint. They filed the said application only to rectit/ the grpographicar mistakes which were crept at the time of liling of the suit. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of tl.re trial Court. IS

4. Initially. petirioners have liled a suit uide O.S.No. 177 of 20O3, for spe<--ific performance of agreement of sale against the respondents on 10.11.2003 and the boundaries of the suit schedule properties for Sy.Nos.314, 315, 3O9 and 311 admeasuring Acs.3-07 gts, Acs.2-37 gts, Acs.B_07 gts and Acs.9-32 gts respectively, u,ere menrioned in the plaint. Written I h ) Statement was filed by the respondent No. l/defendant No.1 on

31.08.2023, respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 10.06.2005 and respondents No.3 and 4/defendants No.3 and 4 on 3O.O7.2O07. Further, additional written statements were also filed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 21.12.2OO7 and by respondents No.3 and 4 oo 07.12.2OO7. As the respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte, respondents No.2 to 4 were impleaded. Respondent No.2 is the wife of respondent No. I and respondents No.3 and 4 are the children of respondent No. 1. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides and also oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners here in. Aggrieve&'by the said Judgment and decree, respondents preferred an appeal before this Court urde A.S.No.394 of 2076 and this Court uide Judgmcnt datcd 12.O7.2022, seL aside the Judgmcnt and decrce passed by the triai Court and remitted ihe mat.ter back for fresh disposal. I.A.No. 1844 of 2018 in O.S.No.177 of 2O03 was filed for setting aside the ex-parte Judgment and decree dated

09.02.2016, passed in O.S.No. 177 ol 2OO3 and it was allowed on 07.12.2079. After remanding the matter for fresh disposal, the present application i.e., I.A.No.1029 of 2024 was fi1ed for rectification of the boundaries on the ground that they obtained Tonch Map and Village Map of Indresham Village and on .1 examining the maps, they noticed that there was an e rror in reference to the survey number on the west side of the item No.ii of the suit schedule properties. The survey number was shown as 32O instead of 321, as such thcy filed the application for alteration of correct boundaries.

5. Petitioncrst stated that the legal heirs of petitioner No. 1 on 10. 1 I .2O2O and, for the first time they errors occurred in the plaint in respect of. the are impleaded identified that description tl1- the item Nos.iii and iv of thc suit schedule properties with respect to boundaries. The boundaries of the land in Sy.No.314/A i.e., item No.i are gped as boundaries of the land in Sy.No.309 i.e., irem No.iii. Similarly, the boundaries of the land in Sy.No.315 /A i.e ., item No.ii are typed as boundaries of the land in Sy.No.3l I i.e., item No.iv of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that as the petitioner No. 1 was used to reside in abroad, they could not notice the errors crept in the said item Nos.iii and iv ol the schedule properties and their father i.e., petitioner No. 1 passed away in the year 2017, later they were impleaded as legal heirs and now they are advised to file amendment application for rectification of the same and thus requested the Court to permit them to amend the plaint as mentioned in the affidavit. They further stated that (r\ the document No.2767 of 2OO2 should also be amended as document No.6727 of 2002 and in item No. ii of the suit schedule property, on the rvest sidc thc Sy.No.32O should be amended as Sy.No.32 I

6. ln the counter filed by the respondents No.2 to 4, they stated that registered agreement o[ sale was marked as Ex.A9 through P.W. I and without rectifying the boundaries in Ex.A9, now petitioners are seeking for rectification of boundaries in the plaint. It is also stated that in the year 2017, respondent NL.t cancelled the registere d agreement of sale uide document No.2543 1 of 2Ol7 dated 12. 1 I .2017 and again exocuted the General Power of Attorney uide document No.25701 of 2017 on the same day in favour of Mohammed Naser Khan and Mohamed Akbar Ali and transfcrred a part of the suit schedule property in favour of third parties by way of sale deeds dated

23.12.2019 bearing document Nos.54397 and 54398 of 2O19, but not challenged the said documents till today and it amounts to playing fraud and misrepresenting true facts. Basing on the said sale deeds, third parties filed a suit for perpetual injunction uide O.S.No.29 of 2O2O against the respondent No.4 and also against thc petitioners herein and it is still pending. Petitioners No.4 and 5 herein are arrayed as defendants No.1 and 2 in the (t said suit and filed their written statement in the year 2O2O. They further stated that petitioners have l'iled the amendment application after lapse of 2l years r.r,ithout any valid reasons and thus requested the Court to dismiss the same.

7. In the counter filed respondent No. 1, he stated that the registered agreement of sale bearing No.672Z of 2OO2 is the basis of Iiling of suit, but it does not contain the boundaries in respect ol the land in Sy.Nos.309 and 3lI. In the absence of mentioning the boundaries in the registered agreement of sale, petitioners cannot sought for amendment to incorporate the boundaries of their choice and petitioners cannot go beyond the schedule property mentioned in the allcged agreemcnt ol sale and arc not entitled for amendment unless the registered agreement of sale was corrected by way of deed of rectification. Further, petitioners sought amendment as per thc boundaries in the village map and tonch map, which is impermissible under law. Petitioners themselves stated that previously t hey tiled the similar petition and the same was misplaced. It shows that they are not diligent. He further stated that previously petitioner No. 1 was examined as P.W. I and an ex_parte decree was passed. When P.W.l was examined he did not seek any amendment, but for the first time legal heirs of the petitioner 1 No.1 are seeking amendment, which is impermissible Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the amendment applicaLion

8. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation o;f India Vs Sanjeeu Builders Prtuate Limited and Anotherl, the guidelines for amendment are mentioned as follows: "(i) Order II RuLe 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit tf the requisite conditions for application' thereof are satisfied and the fleld of amendment of pleadings fatls far beyond its puruiew.'l'he plea of amendment being baned under Order Il Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceiued and hence negatiued. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed rtthich are necessary for determining the real question in controuersu prouided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. l'his is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the uord "shatl", in the latter part of Order VI RuLe 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prager for amendment is to be alloued (I) if the amendment is required for effectiue ond proper adjudicatton of the controuersA betlueen the parties, and (II) to auoid multipticttg of proceedings, prouided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) bg the amendment, the parties seektng amendment does not seek to u.tithdraut ang clear admission made bg the partg u.thich confers a ight on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in diuesting of the other side of a ualuoble accrued nght (in certain situations). (iu) A prager for amendment is generallg required to be ollou-ted unless ' atn zoz2 sc,rzsr 8 ( (l) bu the amend.ment, a ttme bared ctaim is sought to be introdut:ed, in which case tl-Le fact that the claim utiuU Ae time barred becomes a releuant factor 1or considera]ioi., (ll)_.th.e cLmendment changes the nature of the suit,' (UI) the prager for amend.ment is malafi.ie, o,r (N) bg the omend.ment, the other side toses a uali.d deJbnce. courr should auotd a hgpertechnical ordinaitg required to be liberal especiallg ;L;;r,;" partg can be compensated. bA costs. (u) In dealing.u_tith a prager for amendment oj pboain4", tn "or;;;;;, and is (ui) V4tere the amendment u.tould enable the cout to pin pointedlA consider the d.ispute and would oii in i)na"Ang o more satisfactory decision, the prager for amendment should be allou-ted. opposite (uii) Whcre the amend t:: a d d it i o. n. t o r a n e u,- ;;:::.f ::y^: :: ;Z;,,;:o i* r,X,Z barred <ause of action. the amendment * ti"ai. i aZ ),,"'*ii euen a"fter expiry of limitation. . (uiii) Amendment maA be justifiablg alloued. where it is in_tended to rectifg the absence of mateiar particulars in the plaint. in apptging for amend"ment alone is not a ground to ..ix)..Detaa disalloru the prager. Where the aspect of detag i"-;g)rAt", tn" prager .lbr amendment could be allotued ind ttie ,ssue o1 limitatiort framed separatety for d_ecision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as ,o set up an entireLg new case, foreign b the case set up in the plainl, tn o .na.i",nt must be disallotued. Where, howeuer, .the amendm.nt sorg-ht i" only tuith respect to the relief in the plaint, and is p-re-dk atea on Jacts which are alread.g pleaded in the ptaint,'o,rain'ontg tn" amendment is required. to be a oued. (i) WLrcre the amend.ment is sought before commencement of tia| the court is required to be bleral i" io ofp,r*r"n. m" court is required to bear in mind. the fact that ine opposite partg u)ctuld haue a chance to meet the ca_se set up i.n amendmcnt. As such, tultere the amendment does not resutt in irreparable preludice to the opposite partA, or d_iuest the opposite partg of an aduantage uthich it hLLd secured as a result of an admission bg the partg seeking amendment, tn amendnrent is required to be alloued.. Equallg, *,hun tn amendme,nt is necessary for the court to eyl"ctiuJig aiiuaicate, a\ 9 on the main rbsues in controuersA betueen the parties, the amendment should be alloued. "

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon Lhe decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Bodhan Filling Station Reaision Vs. B.Pq.d.maoathi dnd another} in which it was held that " amendment of the pleading mag be permitted at anA stage os long as the same is necessary for the purpase oJ determining the real questions in controuersy betuteen parties. The onlg limitation tuhich hos been placed bg the prouiso, tohich was ad-d-ed" bg an amend.ment in 2002, is that after commencing of the trial such amendment should not be alloued unless the Court coming to the conclusion that the partg seeking amendment utas diligent and could not haue raised the matter before commencement of the tial."

10. Learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Reuanna VsAnjanammq. (Deo.d) bg legal representdtiues and others,3 in which it was held as follows: "Leaue to amend mag be refused if it introduces o totally different, neu and inconststent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. Tlrc prouiso to '? 20 l4 Lawsui(Hyd) 529 '(2019) 4 SCC li2 10 Order 6 ntle 77 CPC uirtuallg preuents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allou-ted after the tial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, tlrc partg could not haue raised the matter before the commencement of the tial. The prouiso, to an ertent, curtaiLs obsolute discretion to allotu izmendment at anA stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person uho seeks an amendment after commencement of the tiol to shottt that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not haue been sought earlier. There cannot be ang dispute that an ornendrnent cannot be claimed as matter of rtght, and under all circumstances. Though nonnallg amendments cLre allot ued in the pleadings to auoid multiplicitg of litigation. the Court needs to take into consideratiom' uthether the application for amendment k bona fide or mala fide and tuhether the amendment causes such prejuclice: to the other side u,hich cannot be compensated aclequate.ly in terms of moneg." : 1 1. In this case, suit for spccihc performance was filed way back in the r.ear 2003. Though the respondents contested the matter, it rvas decreed in favour of petitioners and in the appeal, it was remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposai- After remitting the matter, petitioners filed the amendment application for modification of the boundaries on the ground that they got verified the same through tonch map and village map. Petitioners stated that initially they filed amendment application uide CFR.No.1500 of 2O2O on 17.11.2O2O and also hled a copv of the same, but they stated that it was misplaced. The present application for amendment of plaint was filed on I I O8.O8.2O24. Though they filed an application for amendment in the year 2020 itself, when it was misplaced, they did not brought it to the notice of the officer or made any efforts to revive the same by filing another copy with the permission of the Court. They kept quiet for four years without any reason and it clearly shows that they are not ditigent on their part. It is for the Court to see whether the petitioners have due diligence u,hile allowing the application for amendmenL.

12. Petitioners stated that they obtained tonch map and village map and basing on the said maps, they noticed that there was error in the survey numbers and then they filed the application for rectification of the boundaries. They simply stated that it is only typographical mistake and they wrongly typed by way of copy and paste, as such now they are intending to rectify the same. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that when the petitioners mentioned the boundaries as per the registered agreement of sale, it is for them to rectify the said boundaries in the agreement of sale by way of rectification deed, but they have not taken any steps for execution of the rectilication deed and simply filed the amendment application at a belated point of timc for rectifying the boundaries in the plaint and thus it cannot be considered. t7 At one point, petitioners says that basing on the tonch map and village map, thcy intended to rectify the boundaries and at another point, they says that it was only typographical mistake and thus the1, should be permitted to rectify the same and thus there was no consistency in the pleadings and moreover the maps are obtained on their own during the pendency of the proceedings r,r'ithout the permission of the Court. The document number ol the agreement of sale is No.6727 of 2OO2, but in the plaint they' mentioned it as No.2767 of 2OO2. At least, they have not mentioncd the document number correctly and simply came up with the plea that it is a typographical error. Itris for them to verify thc crucial aspects thoroughly before hling the plaint. So also, they stated that boundary number on the western side is Sy.No.32l . but wrongly ryped as Sy.No.32O. The trial Court observed th.rt the suit was filed in the year 2OO3 and when the entire plaintiffs evidence was closed, petitioners came up with the amenclme nt application at the belated point of time that too after commcncement of the trial. There are subsequent developmcnts took place during the pendency of the suit and thus there was no due diiigence on their part and accordingly dismissed the application. This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the said Order. r I --l

13. In the result, the present Civil Revision petition is dismissed conhrming the Order of the triai Court dated '2024 lh 6.S.No.rz7 of 20'.'09..2O24' fassed in r.A.No.rO29 of

2003. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD N REGISTRAR ASSIS I ION OFFICER 1, The Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge Sangareddy at Sangareddy 2, One CC to Sri Md Ajmal Ahmed, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Tarun Madathanapally Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies .l I ADt(gh 1y I I I HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER CRP.No.3808 of 2024 14s':H1 i, ta unn 2[25 k hAr' r,A T CY! t:11 * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS b e{