Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Padma, vs Pasham Prudhvi Raj on 27 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3895 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2023
passed in I.A.No.2045 of 2023 in O.S.No.04 of 2008 by the IX-
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. I.A.No.2045 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiff to amend
the plaint and also schedule 'A', schedule 'B', schedule 'D' and
schedule 'E' properties. The suit is filed for partition against
the respondents for schedules A, B D and E properties, the
evidence of both the parties was completed and the case was
posted for arguments. It is stated that there are certain
typographical mistakes in the plaint and in para 4 item 1 the
extent of land was shown as 1200 Sq yards, inadvertent
omission regarding extent of land and in line No.7 of page 1
door number is mentioned as 1020234/13/46/4 instead of 1-
1-234/13/46/4 and sought to amend schedule 'A' property
mentioning as 1200 Sq Yds and also in para No.7 line No.4 in
schedule 'A' property door number was referred as 1-2-
234/13F instead of 1-2-234/13/F, reference to 20 flats and 1
to 4 instead of municipal No.1-2-234/13/F/1, 1-2-
234/13/F/2, 1-2-234/13/F/3, 1-2-234/F/4, 1-2-234/13/E
with reference to the shops, petitioner referred to 20 flats with
stilt parking plus five floors," but in the description, flat
Nos.101 to 104 is shown as ground floor instead of first floor,
flat Nos.201 to 204 is shown as first floor instead of second
floor, flat Nos.301 to 304 is shown as second floor instead of
third floor, flat Nos.401 to 404 is shown as third floor instead
of fourth floor, flat Nos.501 to 504 is shown as fourth floor
instead of fifth floor with boundaries, stated as Arvind Nagar
colony road instead of 40' wide road and sought to amend the
schedule 'A' in item No. 1, line No.7 may be corrected as 1-2-
234/13/46/4 instead of 1020234/13/46/4.
3. It is further stated that para No.7, Line 4 may be
corrected as 1-2-234/13/F instead of 1-2-234/13F, with
reference to the 20 flats. Thereafter M.No.1-2-234/13/F/1, 1-
2-234/13/F/2, 1-2-234/F/3, 1-2-234/13/F/4, 1-2-234/13/F
instead of 1 to 4 with reference to the shops. Schedule 'A'
property, Line No.3 may be amended as "First Floor" instead
of Ground Floor, Line No.5 may be amended as "Second Floor"
instead of first floor, Line No.7 may be amended as "Third
Floor" instead of Second Floor, Line No.9 may be amended as
"Fourth Floor" instead of third floor, Line No.11 may be
amended as fifth floor" instead of Fourth Floor. In Line No.15,
the door numbers may be amended as "M.No.1-2-234/13/F,
1-2-234/13/F/1, 1-2-234/13/F/2, 1-2-234/13/F/3, 1-2-
234/13/F/4, 1-2-234/13/F" instead of 1-2-234/13F, 1 to 4.
Similarly after the door number, the extent of property may be
mentioned as "1200 Sq. Yds". Eastern side boundary may be
corrected as 40' wide road instead of Arvind Nagar Colony
road. It is also stated that in para 3 in line 5 and para 4 item
3 line 2, para No.13, line No.3 door number as 1-7-181/1 to
31, 1-7-181 and 1-1-181/1 to 31. In Schedule 'C' Property
with reference to door number and the western side boundary,
it is mentioned as 1-7-181/A instead of 1-7-181. In schedule
'B' property, the door number of 1, 2, Open/234/13/10/A is
not mentioned and on the eastern side boundary, it is
mentioned as 1-2-234/13/10 and 1-2-234/13/A, instead of
"1-2-234/13/10" and prayed to amend para 3, para 4 item 3,
Schedule 'B' property, eastern side boundary and schedule 'C'
Property and western side boundary and it is mentioned as 1-
2-Open/234/13/10/4 eastern boundary as 1-2-234/13/10
instead of 1-2-234/13/1 and 1-2-234/13/A. Eastern
boundary may be corrected as "1-2-234/13/10" instead of 1-
2-234/13/10 and 1-2-234/13/A. Northern side boundary
may be corrected as "H.No.1-2-234/13/36/5 (Neighbour's
Property) instead of open land of P. Rama Murthy. The
western side boundary may be corrected as property of
"Bharathamma" instead of Buffalo shed of Kumara Swamy
4. The door numbers may be corrected as "1-7-181/1, 1-7-
181/1/A/1, 1-7-181/2, 1-7-181/2A, 1-7-181/3, 1-7-
181/3/GF, 1-7-181/42, 1-7-181/4/2, 1-7-181/4/1/GF"
instead of 1-7-181/1 to 31, 1-7-181 and 1-1-181/1 to 31.
Western boundary of schedule 'C' Property may be corrected
as "1-7-181" instead of 1-7-181/A of P. Rama Murthy. It is
further stated that in schedule 'D' property, the typographical
mistake occurred regarding total extent as 150 Sq yards
instead of 110 Sq Yds and the door number is mentioned as
1-7402/1 instead of 1-7-402, the northern boundary is shown
as 1-7-402/3 instead of "Neighbour House", southern
boundary is shown as 1-7-402/1 instead of "Neighbour
House" western side, it is shown as temple instead of
"Neighbour House" and hence, requested to amend the prayer.
5. Heard Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for
Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and
6.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
therein is that there is no change in the claim except
correcting the mistakes with reference to door numbers,
extent, boundaries and entitlement of shares etc. Moreover,
this being a partition suit, if it is not corrected at this stage, it
will be difficult as warrant cannot be executed without door
numbers. There is no counter filed by the respondents. The
trial Court dismissed the petition stating that petitioner is
seeking to change the number of the floors in the plaint and
also to amend the boundaries, house numbers of all the
schedule properties which will lead to changing the identity of
property. If the petition is allowed, petitioner may again
request the Court to permit her to adduce additional evidence,
over amendment of pleadings and it would cause further delay
in disposal of the suit which is filed in the year 2008 and now
which is posted for arguments. The amendment of pleadings
cannot be entertained after commencement of trial and
dismissed the petition.
7. The further contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent
Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are the brothers and sisters of the
petitioner. Respondent No.1 died and respondents 16 to 19
are the children of respondent No.1, respondent Nos.4 to 7 are
the wife and children of 4th brother of petitioner, and
petitioner is the daughter of late P.Balakrishna, who instituted
the suit for partition in respect of Schedule 'A to E' properties
and petitioner is entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule
properties. During the trial, which began in 2008, the plaintiff
examined PWs.1 to 3, while defendant No.2 is Dw.3,
defendant No.13 is Dw.4 and defendant No.9 is Dw.5. The
petitioner discovered alleged partition deeds and gift deeds
between the parties on the Stamps and Registration website
during the cross-examination of defendant No.9. These
documents, marked as Exs.A-26 to A-32, were previously
unknown to the plaintiff. The Court failed to consider that the
schedule properties remained unchanged, and the parties'
defenses did not alter. The petitioner filed an application
under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C, on 30.10.2023, to amend the
plaint's incorrect property descriptions, which did not delay
the proceedings.
8. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court
failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Court in MANU
AP 3761/2013, wherein it is observed that correctness of
amendment cannot be the basis to adjudicate the dispute
under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. In case, if such dispute is
there, apparently, the written statement could be filed by the
parties. When there is no change in the nature of the suit,
the application for amendment has to be allowed, when it
deals with real controversy between the parties and the
controversy is a basic cardinal test and primary duty of the
Court to decide whether amendment is necessary. As such,
prayed this Court to allow this revision by setting aside the
order impugned.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents
would submit that while filing amendment petition there are
changes in boundaries of the property. In a suit if the
boundaries of immovable property are changed, certainly it
will cause prejudice to the respondents. In support of his
contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Basavraj Vs Indira and Others 1 wherein,
in para 16 it is observed as under :
"16. In the case in hand, the compromise decree was
passed on 14-10-2004 in which the plaintiffs were
party. The application for amendment of the plaint was
filed on 8-2-2010 i.e. 5 years and 03 months after
passing of the compromise decree, which is sought to
be challenged by way of amendment. The limitation for
challenging any decree is three years (reference can be
made to Article 59 in Part IV of the Schedule attached
to the Limitation Act, 1963). A fresh suit to challenge
the same may not be maintainable. Meaning thereby,
the relief sought by way of amendment was time-
barred. As with the passage of time, right had accrued
in favour of the appellant with reference to challenge
to the compromise decree, the same cannot be taken
away. In case the amendment in the plaint is allowed,
this will certainly cause prejudice to the appellant.
What cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be
done indirectly."
10. In the above judgment it was observed that it is a time
barred application, whereas in the present case, the suit is at
the stage of arguments and order under Order VI Rule 17 of
C.P.C, is maintainable for amendment before commencement
of trial. Learned counsel further contended that the trial is
2024 (3) SCC 705
almost completed and it is at the stage of arguments and
petitioner herein tried to change the nature of property itself
which cannot be considered. As such, the trial Court has
rightly dismissed the petition and prayed the Court to dismiss
this revision.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel
and the material on record, the amendment petition is filed by
the petitioner in the trial Court for change of door numbers
and also floor numbers. Going through the petition filed by
the petitioner in the trial Court, wherein in Line No.7 of Page
No.1 of plaint it was mentioned as 1020234/13/46/4 instead
of 1-1-234/13/46/4 which reflects that instead of "-", they
used "Zero" and in subsequent door numbers also instead of
13/F, it is mentioned as 13F which are simple corrections in
the door numbers and also floor numbers 101 to 104 was
mistakenly shown as ground floor instead of first floor and so
on. The plaint itself reflects it as ground floor and that
mistake was carried out upto 501 to 504 as 4th floor, which
will not change the nature of property and furthermore, the
counsel for defendants in the trial Court reported no counter
and all these amendments sought are only clerical mistakes,
where, the door numbers and floor numbers are not properly
mentioned. Furthermore, this is a suit for partition and both
the parties are entitled for shares, if the Court decrees the
suit. If the door numbers are not correctly mentioned, it will
lead to multiplicity of proceedings. If there is any grievance for
the respondents, they can file additional written statement
after amendment of the plaint. Hence, the order of the trial
Court is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting
aside the order dated 18.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.2045 of
2023 in O.S.No.04 of 2008 by the IX-Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date : 27.01.2025
Rds
