Telangana High Court
Smt. K.Amaravati vs Smt K. Eeramma on 4 April, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.961 of 2025
ORDER :
The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order
dated 31.12.2024 in I.A.No.600 of 2023 in O.S.No.112 of 2018
passed by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, 'the impugned order').
2. Heard Mr. Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner / plaintiff.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial court dismissed the I.A.
which was filed by petitioner / plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to permit the
petitioner / plaintiff herein to amend the plaint as regards the
schedule of property.
4. Initially, the petitioner / plaintiff filed the above suit under
Section 26 Order VII Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
way back in the year 2015 seeking for preliminary decree and for
other reliefs.
5. Down the line, the proceedings in the suit have reached at
the fag end. In other words, while the suit is under progress, the
pleadings were completed, issues were framed, trial had also
commenced and the evidence on the side of defendants was
closed, and the matter was posted for final arguments. When the
arguments on the plaintiff's side was concluded and arguments on
the defendants' side were also concluded, and when the matter
was posted for reply arguments of the plaintiff, the instant I.A.,
i.e., I.A.No.600 of 2023 in O.S.No.112 of 2018, has been filed by
the petitioner / plaintiff seeking for amend of the plaint as regards
the schedule of property.
6. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, the Trial
Court has rejected the I.A. vide the impugned order. It is this
order which is under challenge in the instant Civil Revision
Petition.
7. Perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the
findings arrived at by the Trial Court, so far as the amendment
which is being sought for, pertains to a Development Agreement,
bearing Document No.11152/2007, dated 29.08.2007, said to be
executed by respondents / defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of
respondent / defendant No.5 on 29.08.2007.
8. The suit is one which was filed in the year 2018, and after a
lapse of six years and when the suit had progressed and reached
its fag end, the instant I.A. has been filed by the petitioner /
plaintiff seeking for amendment of the plaint so far as the
Development Agreement, bearing Document No.11152/2007,
dated 29.08.2007, said to be executed by respondents / defendant
Nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent / defendant No.5 on
29.08.2007 is concerned.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallavva vs.
Kalsammanavara Kalamma (died) by Legal Heirs 1 wherein a
learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with
Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by relying on an
earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and
Sons 2 wherein certain basic principles were laid down at para
No.63 of the said judgment, which the Courts should keep in mind
while allowing or rejecting an application for amendment, which
for ready reference is reproduced as under :
"63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases,
some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into
1 2025 (2) A.L.D. 16 (S.C.)
(2009) 10 SCC 84
consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment :
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and
effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala
fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other
side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of
money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to
multiple litigations;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case;
and
(6) as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a
fresh suit on the amendment claims would be barred by
limitation on the date of application."
10. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in Mallavva (referred supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the said decision has been decided in an
entirely different contextual background and the analogy applied
therein cannot be applied in a straight-jacket formula in the facts
of the present case. Therefore, the said decision cannot come to
the aid of the petitioner.
11. Further, taking into consideration the provision of Order VI
Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it would be relevant at this
juncture to take note of clause (2) to Order VI Rule 17 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 which clearly prescribes that no such
application for amendment should be allowed after trial had
commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite
of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before
commencement of trial. It is this fact which the Trial Court had
also found missing from the contents of the I.A. and also from the
submissions put forth by the petitioner / plaintiff before the Trial
Court.
12. It is hard to accept that the petitioner / plaintiff would not
get hold of the Development Agreement, one that was executed 17
years back, and also after filing of the above suit, i.e., for the last
six years during which period the matter was pending before the
Trial Court.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order does not warrant any
interference. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition, being devoid of
any merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
14. As a consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 04.04.2025
Ndr
