Telangana High Court
Bhawari Devi Satyanarayan Soni ... vs Shri Satyanarayan Soni on 4 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1794 of 2024
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed challenging the order
dated 26.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.285 of 2024 in
O.P.No.1662 of 2012 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners
herein filed Tr.OP.No.1662 of 2012 under Section 34 read
with 31 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. In the said OP., they
also filed I.A.No.285 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of the
Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') seeking to amend the
prayer portion in the original petition by adding the
proposed amendment in continuation of the prayer. After
hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A.
Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for revision
petitioners, and Smt. Manjari Ganu, learned counsel for
respondents.
4. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that
the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition filed seeking
to amend the prayer clause to reconstruct the Trust Deed,
and stated that the same is necessary due to the death of
Respondent No. 1, who was in possession of the original
Trust Deed. He further contended that the amendment is not
belated, as held by the trial Court, and that alternate relief
can be sought at any stage to meet the ends of justice. He
lamented that the trial Court failed to appreciate the reasons
for incorporating alternate relief and passed a non-speaking
order without applying its mind, thereby, violating the
principles of natural justice. Therefore, prayed this Court to
allow the revision petition, setting aside the order dated
26.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.285 of 2024 in O.P.No.1662 of
2012.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents,
vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned
counsel for petitioners and contended that the IA., filed by
the petitioners for amendment is mala fide, and intended to
cover up their own laches and lacunae, and also to delay
and protract the case by harassing the respondents. She
lamented that allowing amendments after trial has
commenced is not permissible under CPC and settled legal
principles, and that the proposed amendment is not an
alternate relief, but rather an attempt to introduce distinct
and separate reliefs. She pointed out that the petitioners
failed to take any steps to amend the original petition for
seven years after the death of respondent No.1 in the year
2017, and that respondent No.4, who is the sole legal
representative of respondent No. 1, does not have custody of
the original documents, which are allegedly created and
concocted. Therefore, while advocating that there are no
illegalities or infirmities in the impugned order, she prayed
this Court to dismiss the revision petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
the original petition filed by the petitioners is of the year
2012 and the amendment petition was filed by them very
recently, i.e., only in the year 2024, contending that
respondent No.1 died in the year 2017 due to which the
relief can be altered, whereas, it is the specific stand of
respondents that no steps were taken in this regard by the
petitioners for a period of seven long years, so as to seek
alternate relief. However, at this stage, it is imperative to
note that the original petition is now at the stage of
advancing arguments and it is evident that there is no due
diligence placed by petitioners for filing the amendment
petition, as such, it can be observed that the trial Court has
rightly discussed all the aspects in proper manner.
7. Though learned counsel for petitioners, placed reliance
on several judgments to show that petition cannot be
dismissed on the sole ground of delay in seeking amendment
and cannot be denied, it is imperative to note that in the
present case, the only ground for amendment is death of
respondent No.1 which is in the knowledge of petitioners
from the year 2017 itself. Therefore, there is no reasonable
ground mentioned by the petitioners for the said delay in
seeking amendment. Further, though learned counsel for
petitioners relied on several other judgments, it is pertinent
to observe that the facts of the said cases are different from
the facts of case on hand. Hence, this Court is of the firm
view that there are no illegalities or infirmities in the
impugned order, warranting interference of this Court. There
are no merits in this case and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04 .03.2025
PT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
PRE DELIVERY ORDER
IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1794 of 2024
Date: 04.03.2025
PT
