Telangana High Court
B. Venkat Reddy Died Per Lrs 2 To 6 vs Akula Vijaya Laxmi on 10 April, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1390 of 2021
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - respondent -
appellant aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.707 of 2016
in A.S.No.161 of 2012 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. The revision petitioner is the appellant - defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2002.
During the pendency of this revision, the revision petitioner died and his legal
representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 6.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that O.S.No.3 of 2002 was filed by the
respondent - plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated
23.06.1995 and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule lands.
The trial court after full-fledged trial, decreed the suit by its judgment dated
16.04.2012. Against the judgment and decree, the petitioner herein preferred
appeal vide A.S.No.161 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. During the
pendency of the said appeal, the respondent filed a petition under Order VI Rule
17 and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of CPC seeking
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1390_2021
to amend the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property. The said
petition was allowed by the lower Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner - respondent - appellant preferred this revision.
4. Heard Sri Avancha H.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri K.Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant submitted that under Order
VI Rule 17 of CPC, an amendment need to be made at pretrial stage, but not
post trial. The petition was filed by the respondent - plaintiff at a belated stage
after a lapse of 14 years. The respondent - plaintiff had given common
boundaries for two separate survey numbers. The appeal was filed in the year
2012. But the respondent had not taken any steps immediately for filing such
application in 2012 itself, which would show that she was negligent. The
conduct of the parties would need to be taken into consideration while deciding
such applications and prayed to set aside the order passed by the lower
Appellate Court in I.A.No.707 of 2016 in A.S.No.161 of 2012 dated 26.07.2021
on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy
District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff on the other hand
contended that while preparing the arguments in the appeal, it was noticed that
at the time of filing of the suit, a typographical mistake has been occurred in
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1390_2021
respect of the eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property. The same
was mentioned as Bandi Yellaiah and others instead of Bandi Yettaiah and
others. The name of Bandi Yettaiah was also mentioned in the notice given to
the defendant on 27.06.2001. No prejudice would be caused to the revision
petitioner herein by allowing the send amendment. The lower Appellate Court
had not committed any error in passing the said order and prayed to dismiss the
revision.
7. Perused the record.
8. As the record would disclose that the suit was filed showing the schedule
of property as agricultural land bearing ghut Survey No.319 to an extent of
Ac.3-00 acres or its sub-survey numbers 319/a, 319/e, 319/ee, 319/u, 319/uu
and 319/ru, total to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas and ghut survey No.335 to an
extent of Ac.2-00 guntas or its sub-survey number 335/e total measuring
Ac.5-00 guntas situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,
Rangareddy District, bounded by:
North: Land of Budidi Venkat Reddy.
South: Land of Bandi Ramulu.
East: Land of Bandi Yellaiah and others.
West: Land of B.Sathyanarayana Reddy.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the
eastern side boundary of the suit schedule property was shown as land of Bandi
Dr.GRR, J
crp_1390_2021
Yellaiah and others instead of Bandi Yettaiah and others. It was a typographical
mistake because the notice given to the defendant on 27.06.2001 also would
disclose the name of the eastern side boundary owner as Bandi Yettaiah.
10. Considering the said contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent,
as the same is only a typographical mistake and no prejudice would be caused to
the revision petitioner - defendant - appellant herein by allowing such
amendment, this Court considers that there is no error committed by the lower
Appellate Court in permitting the respondent - plaintiff for amending the eastern
side boundary as Bandi Yettaiah and others in place of Bandi Yellaiah and
others.
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order
of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad passed in I.A.No.707 of 2016 in A.S.No.161 of 2012
dated 26.07.2021.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 10th April, 2025
Nsk
