Telangana High Court
Kathula Balaiah vs Kedam Saritha , on 31 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4151 OF 2024
AND
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.708 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER
Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants in
the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional District
Judge, Siddipet challenging the common order dt.21.08.2024 passed in
I.A.Nos.115 and 116 of 2024 in the said suit. The suit was originally
numbered as O.S.No.19 of 2016 on the file of III Additional District
Judge at Karimnagar and thereafter renumbered as O.S.No.46 of 2022
on transfer to the file of I Additional District Judge, Siddipet.
2. The suit was filed by the sole plaintiff/respondent herein for
specific performance of an agreement of sale dt.18.06.2011 for purchase
of Ac.3.38 guntas in Survey No.234, Ac.2.00 in Survey No.235, Ac.3.00
in Survey No.236, Ac.1.33 guntas in Survey No.253, Ac.1.17 guntas in
Survey No.254 and Ac.2.28 guntas in Survey No.255 totalling to
Ac.14.36 guntas situated at Kuchanapalli Revenue Village Shivar,
Husnabad Mandal, Karimnagar District including borewell, mango
garden and half share in another open agricultural well, for a valid
C.R.P.Nos.1451/2024 & 708/2025
consideration. The defendants have filed written statement in the year
2016. Subsequently, during the course of trial, the plaintiff noticed that
though an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas in Survey No.254 was mentioned in
the plaint, the same was not mentioned in the plaint schedule of the suit.
3. In view thereof, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.115 of 2024 under
Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint schedule. The
defendants objected to the same by filing a counter affidavit contending
that it is not a typographical mistake as claimed by the plaintiff and that
the same has not been reflected in the fair copy of the plaint and steps
were not taken to amend the suit schedule before commencement of the
trial.
4. I.A.No.116 of 2024 was filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking
to reopen the suit for amendment of the plaint schedule.
5. The trial Court, vide common orders dt.21.08.2024, has allowed
both I.A.Nos.115 and 116 of 2024. Aggrieved by the same, the
defendants have filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the
suit was filed in the year 2016 and they also filed written statement and
the trial was also conducted and at a belated stage, the
C.R.P.Nos.1451/2024 & 708/2025
respondent/plaintiff could not have filed I.A.Nos.115 and 116 of 2024
and the trial Court ought not to have allowed them at this belated stage.
He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pandit Malhari Mahale Vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and
others1 in support of his contention that the Court has to be satisfied that
the party, in spite of due diligence, could not introduce amendment
before commencement of the trial and allowing of amendment after the
trial is not sustainable. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs.
K.K.Modi and others 2 in support of the above contention.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand,
supported the impugned orders and submitted that though the land in
question was mentioned in the plaint copy, inadvertently, it was missed
in the plaint schedule and therefore, as soon as it was noticed, the
plaintiff has approached the trial Court by filing the present I.A.Nos.115
and 116 of 2024 and the defendants have also filed an additional written
statement. It is submitted that the mistake was purely typographical and
Civil Appeal No.189 of 2020 dt.10.01.2020
Appeal (Civil) Nos.5350-5351 of 2002 dt.22.03.2006
C.R.P.Nos.1451/2024 & 708/2025
was not intentional and the order of the trial Court has to be thus
sustained.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that though there is considerable delay in filing the
present applications, it cannot be said that the respondent/plaintiff was
not diligent enough in filing the plaint. The concerned land, i.e., Ac.1.17
guntas in Survey No.254 was mentioned in the plaint and was only
missing in the plaint schedule and it can be considered as an unintended
mistake and the delay in rectifying the said mistake can be condoned.
Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the order of the trial
Court in allowing I.A.Nos.115 and 116 of 2024 for reopening the main
suit for carrying out the consequential amendments.
9. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Civil Revision
Petitions shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 31.07.2025
Svv
