The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the requirement of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., is that any amendment to the plaint would be permissible, even after the commencement of trial, if it is shown that such a defect could not have been found out without due diligence and that an application for amendment is moved immediately upon realizing the need for amendment.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Plaintiff/Respondent filed the original suit against the Petitioner for a grant of permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the commencement of the trial, an application was filed by the Respondent seeking amendment of the Northern and Southern boundaries of the plaint schedule. The trial court allowed the application. Aggrieved by this, the present civil revision petition is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the amendment of the plaint after the commencement of the trial is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. It was furthermore submitted that the Respondent can’t be permitted to change boundaries at this belated stage and any such change would affect the rights of the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that the mistake was a typographical error and the same couldn’t be detected by due diligence. It was furthermore contended that the requirement of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., is met.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. stipulates that any amendment to the plaint would be allowed, even after the trial has commenced, provided it can be demonstrated that the defect could not have been discovered without due diligence and that an application for amendment is made as soon as it is realized that an amendment is required.
The court noted that in the instant case, the requirements of the above-mentioned proviso are met.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the civil revision Petition.
Case title: Dommaraju Beerendra Varma V. Dommaraju Surekha
Coram; Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 198/2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: V. Vinod K Reddy
Advocate for the Respondent: V. Eswaraiah Chowdary
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
