APHC010139322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Paruchuri Subramanyam Paruchuri Nagendram and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VENKATA SAI NIKHIL KASHYAP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAVIKANTH The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 832/2024 Paruchuri Subramanyam ...PETITIONER AND Paruchuri Nagendram and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: M VENKATA SAI NIKHIL KASHYAP Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.832 of 2024 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner/defendant No.5 is directed against the order, dated 30.11.2023, allowing I.A.No.117 of 2023 in O.S.No.586 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, filed under Order VI, rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule in the above suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The case of the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking amendment of the plaint schedule, in brief, is as follows: a. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property. Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and after his death, the plaintiff and other defendants including the 5th defendant succeeded to the schedule property. The 5th defendant created D.K. patta in his name and has been contesting the suit. The plaintiff obtained information under the Right to Information Act, and found discrepancy in the extents mentioned in the plaint schedule. Hence, she filed this petition seeking to amend the plaint schedule to avoid future complications. By way of amendment, there is no change in the cause of action. There are no willful latches or default on the part of the plaintiff in drafting the schedule and for better adjudication of the dispute, the plaint schedule is required to be amended and if the amendment is allowed, the defendants are not going to suffer any loss or damage. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.832 of 2024 b. The respondents No.1, 2 and 4 died and respondents No.3 & 4 remained ex parte before the trial Court. The 5th respondent filed counter with the following averments: The petitioner, without filing any documents with regard to the suit schedule property, filed the present suit with assumptions and presumptions with regard to plot number, extent and door number. After filing the D.K.T patta before the Court which was issued in the name of this respondent in the year 1976, immediately, the petitioner filed this petition seeking to amend the plaint schedule after ten years of filing the suit when the matter was coming for evidence of the plaintiff. The petitioner did not mention anywhere details regarding the patta number allotted to her father. The schedule shown in the plaint and the amendment sought are quite different. The respondent No.5 has been in possession and enjoyment of the property covered in the D.K.patta which was issued in his name in the year 1976. The petitioner is no way concerned with the property of this respondent. The petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. For better appreciation, the original schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiff is excerpted herein below: “Prakasam District, Ongole Sub-Registration, Ongole Municipal Corporation Limits – T.S.No.7 by the side of Door No.37-1-409/76 – 4th Lane, Bhagyanagar, Ongole, an extent of 14 gadies 19 square feet of site, within the said site, there is asbestos cement sheet and bounded by East : Vacant site of Chunduri Subba Rao etc. South : House of Kollapothula Veeranjaneyulu West : Road North : Road” 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.832 of 2024 b. The consequential amendment sought for reads as follows: 1. Delete the “Door No.37-1-409/76” and substitute therein with “H.No.117, Street No.H 40 Plot No.121” in line No.3 of plaint schedule. 2. Delete the “14 gadies 19” and substitute therein with “1750” sq. feet in line No.4 of plaint schedule. 3. Add the word “@ Anjaiah” after the name “Veeranjaneyulu” in line No.8 of the plaint schedule.” 5. On merits, the trial Court observed that except inclusion of plot number in the suit schedule, there is no change in the property and the claim in the suit is not changed and as such, for proper and effective adjudication of the suit, the proposed amendment is required. It further observed that whether the suit property is liable for division or not can be considered at the time of evaluation of evidence, however, for the inconvenience caused to the other side, the petitioner shall be directed to pay costs. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the petition on condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.3,000/- to respondents No.5 to 7. 6. Therefore, the aggrieved defendant No.5 preferred this revision petition. 7. In view of the facts and the rival contentions, it is profitable to refer to the legal position relevant to the relief sought in the petition. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code reads as under: “Amendment of Pleadings.--- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.832 of 2024 and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 8. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that after long lapse of ten years of filing the suit when the matter is coming up for trial, the amendment is proposed changing the entire plaint pleading and plaint schedule property only to fill up the lacunae. It is further contended that since earlier no such details were provided, the defence taken is different and now after the amendment, the defence would also change and thereby, the entire nature of the suit would change. b. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Pandit Malhari Mahale Vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and others1, wherein it was held at paras 6 to 8 as follows: “6. From the evidence on record, it does appear that evidence had begun and thereafter amendment application was filed. Without their being any finding by the Court as contemplated by Order VI, Rule 16 proviso, the Court ought not to have allowed the amendment. 1 (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 549 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.832 of 2024 7. In the present case, the Civil Judge has not returned any finding that the Court is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In (Vidyabai and Ors. v. Padmalatha and Anr.) [(2009) 2 S.C.C. 409], this Court observed in para 19 as under: “19. It is primal duty of the Court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts the power of the Court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction in a case of this nature is limited. Thus unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 8. There being no finding by the Court that the Court is satisfied in spite of due diligence, the party could not introduce amendment before commencement of the trial, the order of the trial Judge is unsustainable. The High Court has not adverted to the above aspect of the matter. In view of aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court as well as of the Civil Judge, the amendment application stands dismissed.” 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff contends that as the suit is at the stage of trial only, and the details could be secured after filing of the petition, all the necessary 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.832 of 2024 details could not be furnished at the time of filing the plaint and for better adjudication of the suit, it is necessary to allow the amendment as the trial has not yet commenced. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court shows that a well reasoned order has been passed. Moreover, the dispute can be better resolved only if all the necessary details are before the Court. Though there is some delay on the part of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in filing the petition, the same was compensated by awarding costs by the trial Court. As contended by the revision petitioner, no change in the nature of the suit would be brought by the proposed amendment. After the amendments are incorporated, an opportunity would be provided to the defendants to file additional pleadings so that adjudication of the dispute on merits can be made. So, this Court does not see any error in the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 18-02-2024 RAR