The High Court · 2025

3. Mrs. Rasheeda Sultana Wo Late Mir Muzaffer Hussain, Occ, Household, R/o 4. Mrs. Zubaida Sultana W/o Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.11-3-'13/151/b, Bharath colony, Mouzampura, New Mallepally, Hyderabad .. Respondents/Plaintiffs

5. Syed Siraj Ahmed S/o Late Shabbir Ahmed Occ: Agriculture 6. Syed Basheer Ahmed S/o late Syed Shabbir Ahmed Occ: Business, Both are R/o H.No.1-27, Mangalapally village, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 7. Smt Muneera Sultana Wo late Syed Azheruddin Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.17- 8-246155, Bagh-e-Jahara, Malakpet, Hyderabad . .. Respondents/Defendants Nos.2 to 4 lA NO: 't OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in OS No.233 of 2016 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam , till the disposal of the main suit. Counsel for the Petitione(s): SRl. M.A.K.Mukheed, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER :7 I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I V ET 2 ORDER This Civir Revision petition is fired against the order of the triar court dated 14.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.33B of 2ozo in o.s.No.233 of 2O16on by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Ibrahimpatnam, wherein the petition fired by the respondents/pra intiffs under Order VI Rule ),7 of CpC read with 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries of the suit schedule p ro perty

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possessibn of suit schedule property and allotment of l/ll share each. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed written statements. During the enquiry in I.A.No.98 of 2016 filed seeking ad_ interim injunction restraining the respondents from arienating the suit schedure property. it is noticed that the boundaries of the schedure property are not mentioned in the petition or in the praint. The said mistake was due to inadvertence. As such, the plaintiffs requested the Court to allow the petition permitting further amendment of suit schedule property. 2

3. On the other hand, the respondents have counter affidavit opposing the petition on the ground that the property was gifted tn favour of defendant No.1 by his father on 30.11.1995 and there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience to allow the petition and requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have separate counter affidavit contending that the petition is not maintainable and it is liable to dismissed. The alleged plea of mistake or inadvertence is false and it is created for the purpose of petition and respondent No.4 ltras also filed separate counter affidavit contending that the petitlon is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed and the plaintiffs have nothing to do with the suit schedule property and they are not entitled for any sha re.

5. After hearing all the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed

6. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession, wherein defendant No.1 filed written statement. The defendant No.1 counter affidavit in the I.A. and categorically mentioned that plaintiffs have not mentioned the suit schedule property and with due diligence, respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed amendment petition to amend the plaint for adding schedule of / / '1 --7 3 property for which the petitioner filed a counter affidavit and denied the averments as respondent Nos.1 to 4 have no locus standi and the Court might not have seen the records and also without application of mind passed the orders stating that the petitioner has not filed written statement as on today. In fact, the written statement was filed on

30.08.2016 and further submitted that the boundaries which were mentioned in the present amendment petition do not belong to the suit schedule property and the plaint has been rejected on that ground and without giving any proper reason, allowed the amendment petition and requested the Court to set aside the same.

7. Heard Mr. M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondents,/plaintiffs. Perused the material on record.

8. The learned counsel for thi: petitioner would submit that the plaint which is filed for partition of immovable property without mentioning the boundaries of the suit property cannot be maintainable. The suit is filed for partition of the immovable property. The plaintiffs have to mention the boundaries in the plaint and it is identified by the defendant and he also filed a counter affidavit stating the same. then only the plaintiffs realized and filed the present petition for amendment of the plaint. Whereas, the trial Court observed that \" ,l 4 the petitioner herein has not filed written statement and no prejudice would caused if the amendment petition is allowed and the same shows non application of mind. As such, requested the Court to set aside the order.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the plaintiffs have not mentioned the boundaries at the time of filing of suit inadvertently and it is the mistake on the part of the counsel. Therefore, they filed a petition for amendment of plaint and the amendment can be allowed before commencement of the trial, as per Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. As the trial was not commenced as on the date of allowing the petition, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the case and requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

10. Having regard to the submissjons made by both the parties and the material on record, it is to been seen that the respondents have filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint stating that inadvertently they have not mentioned the boundaries in the plaint and the suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule property, as such the plaintiffs requested the Court to amend the plaint for adding the schedule of the property. Defendant No.1 stated in the counter affidavit that the plaintiffs have not mentioned 5 the boundaries of the schedule of the property at the time of filing of the suit. The trial Court rightly allowed the petition observing that the written statement was not filed, even though it was filed on

30.Q8.2016. The record further shows that in paragraph No.1 of the order itself that the trial Court mentioned about the filing of the written statement, whereas in the conclusion it is mentioned that the written statement is not filed. Even though if the written statement is filed, the right of the plaintiffs cannot be curtailed for amendment of the plaint as per Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Amendment can be qllowed before commencement of the trial. As the trial has not commenced, allowing the petition cannot be said to be illegal andl further if there are disputes in the boundaries, it has to be decided by the trial Court after adjudication of the suit and it is not a stage to decide in the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, whether the schedule of the property mentioned by the plaintiffs are correct or not. As such, viewed from any angle, there are no merits in the petition and there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahimpatnam. 2 One CC to Mr. M.A.K.Mukheed, Advocate. 3. One CC to Mr. A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate 4. Two CD Copies w / HIGH COURT DATED: 02.01.2025 ORDER CRP.No.3038 of 2022 ( c (_) ,,, 1HE sTA ra c-\a\ 19 r[B 2il25 .sl'arctr t .t 4.' DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G.odna Hr 6rt-'t