Telangana High Court
Indus Palm Hotels And Resorts Ltd. vs Mr. Abdul Munshad Baig on 7 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1053 & 1054 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the civil revision
petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together
and are being decided by way of this common order.
2. Challenging the common order dated 03.06.2021
passed in I.A.Nos.1364 and 1365 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.60 and
61 of 2012 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present Civil Revision Petitions
are filed.
3. The brief facts of the cases are that the plaintiff filed two
suits vide O.S.Nos.60 and 61 of 2012 seeking recovery of
possession of property from the defendants, who included his
brothers and Indus Palm Hotels and Resorts Ltd. He
contended that his brothers had fraudulently obtained gift
deeds of his property under duress and coercion but failed to
make the agreed payments under an MOU. The plaintiff later
sought amendments to the plaint to explicitly declare the gift
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
deeds as null and void and for their cancellation, claiming the
omission was due to financial constraints and drafting errors.
However, the defendants opposed the amendments, stating
that they were made with the intent to delay proceedings, that
the claims were time-barred, and that the plaintiff had failed
to exercise due diligence in raising these claims earlier. The
defendants further submitted that allowing the amendments
would change the nature of the suit and cause injustice to the
defendants.
4. The trial Court vide order dated 03.06.2021 allowed the
petitions observing that the proposed changes did not alter
the nature of the suit but only clarified existing claims. The
trial Court ruled that amendments should be permitted in the
interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, subject
to the plaintiff paying the required court fees.
5. Heard Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Kiran Kumar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
trial Court erred in allowing the amendment application filed
by Respondent No.1, disregarding the proviso to Order VI Rule
17 CPC, which mandates that amendments after the
commencement of trial can only be allowed if the party could
not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. He
further submitted that the amendment, sought at the fag end
of the trial, introduces a time-barred cause of action,
retrospectively altering the nature of the suit and prejudicing
the Petitioner and that the relief for declaration and
cancellation of the gift deed should have been sought within
three years from its execution as per Article 58 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, and allowing such an amendment after
12 years defeats the principles of finality and legal certainty.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
trial Court misinterpreted the judgments cited by respondent
No.1, which do not apply to cases where an amendment
introduces a new cause of action and that the order also
violates Order II Rule 2 of CPC and Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, as respondent No.1 knowingly omitted the
relief of declaration and is now attempting to introduce it to
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
overcome the bar of limitation. He further contended that the
amendment gravely prejudices the Petitioner, as the trial has
already been conducted based on the original pleadings, and
allowing it would require reopening the entire case, forcing
fresh pleadings, additional cross-examination, and new
arguments, causing serious injustice.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
reasons cited for the amendment, financial hardship and
inadvertence in drafting, are vague, unsubstantiated, and
frivolous, exposing it as a mere delaying tactic and abuse of
the judicial process. Therefore, the amendment should have
been rejected outright, and the decision of the trial must be
set aside to prevent undue advantage to respondent No.1 and
uphold the principles of natural justice. Hence, he prayed the
Court to set aside the common order of the trial Court by
allowing these civil revision petitions.
9. In support of this submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Peethani Suryanarayana and another v. Repaka
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
Venkata Ramana Kishore and others 1, Basavaraj v. Indira
and Ors 2 , Ideal College of Arts and Science v. Medical
Education Society 3 , Ankam Govindamma v. Syed
Shafeeullah 4, Revajeetu Builders and Narayanaswamy and
Sons and Ors 5, Vidyabai and Ors v. Padmalatha and Ors 6, L
J Leach and Co Ltd v. Messers Jairdine Skinner and Co. 7,
Ma Shew Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung 8 , South Konkan
Distilleries and Ors v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and Ors 9,
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited and Another 10.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the trial
Court, stating that the amount prepared by respondent No.1
is a consequential relief. If there is sufficient material in the
plaint to show that the document was obtained under
coercion, the averments themselves indicate that the
(2009) 11 SCC 308
(2024) 3 SCC 705
2022 4 ALD 728
2019 1 ALD 284
2009 10 SCC 84
2009 2 SCC 409
AIR 1957 SC 357
AIR 1922 PC 249
AIR 2009 SC 1177
2022 16 SCC 1
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
document is null and void, except for the explicit prayer
declaring it as such. The entire plaint must be read
holistically to allow the amendment petitions. The averments
in the plaint already establish that the gift deed is a void
document; therefore, merely adding a prayer to declare it as
null and void does not prejudice the petitioner in any way.
Furthermore, limitation is not a valid ground to restrict the
amendment. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sanjeev Builders (supra 10), the trial Court has the
discretion to frame an issue regarding limitation if necessary,
but the amendment itself cannot be rejected on that basis.
Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the civil revision
petitions.
11. In light of the submissions made by the both learned
counsel and upon a thorough examination of the material
available on record, it is evident that both civil revision
petitions have been filed against the common order of the trial
Court, wherein the trial Court allowed the amendment
petitions on the premise that the relief sought by respondent
No.1/plaintiff is merely consequential and was not initially
included as a prayer at the time of filing the suit. The trial
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
Court opined that since the entire plaint revolves around the
validity of the gift deed, allowing the amendment would not
introduce a new cause of action but would rather clarify an
existing issue.
12. The first and primary contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment is barred by
limitation. It is well established that the limitation period for
seeking a declaration is three years from the date when the
right to sue first accrues, as per Article 58 of the Limitation
Act, 1963. In the present case, however, the amendment
seeking declaration of the gift deed as null and void was filed
after 13 years, which, on its face, appears to be time-barred.
The petitioner argues that such a belated attempt to amend
the pleadings is impermissible in law and defeats the principle
of finality in litigation.
13. However, a closer examination of the plaint reveals that
the entire suit is based on the contention that the gift deed
was obtained fraudulently and under coercion, and the
plaintiff had already sought recovery of possession, alternative
relief, and recovery of money. These averments suggest that
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
the claim of the plaintiff was, from the outset, based on the
alleged invalidity of the document, and the failure to include a
specific prayer for declaring it null and void was a mere
omission rather than a fundamental defect. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sanjeev Builders (supra) has held that
delay alone cannot be a ground to reject an amendment if the
claim itself is an integral part of the existing pleadings. Where
the issue of delay is arguable, the amendment may be
permitted, and the question of limitation can be framed as a
separate issue for adjudication. Accordingly, the trial Court
was justified in concluding that limitation alone does not
preclude the amendment, and the civil revision petitions
cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay.
14. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that respondent No.1 failed to exercise due
diligence in filing the amendment petitions. It is a settled
principle that when an amendment is sought after the
commencement of trial, the applicant must prove that despite
due diligence, the issue could not have been raised earlier.
The petitioner argues that the plaintiff had ample opportunity
to seek the amendment at the initial stage of litigation, yet he
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
chose not to do so and instead waited until the trial was
almost concluded, after evidence had been led and arguments
had been advanced. Such conduct, the petitioner contends,
demonstrates a lack of due diligence and suggests that the
amendment is a mere afterthought, intended to delay the
proceedings and frustrate the defense of the petitioner.
15. Respondent No.1 has justified the delay by stating that
at the time of drafting the plaint, he was in financial distress,
and multiple changes in legal counsel resulted in certain
omissions. However, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner,
financial constraints and changes in legal representation
cannot justify the failure to exercise due diligence. The
responsibility of ensuring that all necessary reliefs are sought
in a suit lies with the party and its legal counsel, and a party
cannot be permitted to rectify fundamental omissions at the
last stage of proceedings merely by citing inadvertence or
confusion.
16. However, it is also important to consider the substantive
nature of the amendment. The entire suit is based on the
premise that the gift deed is void, and the relief sought
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
through the amendment is not an entirely new cause of action
but merely an additional prayer reinforcing an existing claim.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaja & Anr v. Yellappa 11
has held that amendments should not be rejected solely on
the ground of limitation if the relief sought is necessary for the
complete adjudication of the dispute.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that
allowing the amendment would fundamentally alter the nature
of the suit, as the original relief sought was recovery of
possession and alternative monetary relief, whereas the
amendment introduces a declaratory relief regarding the
validity of the gift deed. The petitioner argues that such a
substantive change in the pleadings, at the final stage of trial,
would require reopening the case, leading to prejudice against
the petitioner.
18. However, the trial Court correctly observed that the
cancellation of the gift deed is only a consequential relief.
When deciding the suit, the Court will inevitably have to
determine whether the gift deed is valid or void, and if it is
(2004) 6 SCC 415
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
found to be void, the logical outcome would be the rejection of
the document, which is equivalent to cancellation. Therefore,
merely adding a specific prayer for cancellation does not
materially alter the nature of the suit but rather clarifies and
strengthens the relief already being sought.
19. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
emphasized that procedural laws should not be applied in a
rigid manner if doing so would defeat substantive justice. In
Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary 12 , the Court held that
amendments should be permitted if they are necessary to
resolve the real issues in dispute, even if they are sought at a
later stage of litigation. Similarly, in Abdul Rehman & Anr v.
Mohd Ruldu & Ors 13, the Supreme Court observed that if the
factual basis for an amendment is already present in the
original pleadings, then allowing the amendment does not
amount to introducing a new case.
20. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the pleadings,
arguments, and legal precedents, it is clear that although the
petitioner's concerns regarding delay and due diligence are
AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1186
(2012) 11 SCC 341
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
valid in certain respects, they do not outweigh the need for a
fair adjudication of the real issues in dispute. The reasoning of
the trial Court that the amendment merely clarifies a
consequential relief and does not fundamentally alter the
nature of the suit is well-founded. Furthermore, in light of the
ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Builders
(supra), the question of limitation should be treated as a
separate issue to be adjudicated upon during trial rather than
as a ground for outright rejection of the amendment.
21. Thus, considering that the trial Court exercised its
discretion within the legal framework, and there is no
manifest illegality or material irregularity in its order, there
are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the civil revision petitions lack merit and are
liable to be dismissed.
22. In view thereof, these civil revision petitions are
dismissed confirming the common order dated 03.06.2021
passed in I.A.Nos.1364 and 1365 of 2019 in O.S.Nos.60 and
61 of 2012 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
Civil Court, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 07.03.2025
SAI
SKS,J
C.R.P.Nos.1053, 1054 of 2021
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
P.D. COMMON ORDER
IN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1053 & 1054 of 2021
Date: 07.03.2025
SAI
