APHC010192242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Thursday, the twenty fourth day of July, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Civil Revision Petition Between: Annem Ravi Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Uppalapati. Ravi Babu Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Bugulu. Sreeteja Counsel for the respondent: 1. G. Sravan Kumar The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) hursday, the twenty fourth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Present Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1043 of 2025 Annem Ravi Chandra Sekhar Reddy ...Petitioner ...Respondent etitioner: espondent: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] hursday, the twenty fourth day of July, two thousand and twenty five Petitioner Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1043 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner / respondent / plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against orders, dated 20.02.2025, allowing I.A. No.527 of 2024 in O.S. No. 9 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda, filed by respondent / petitioner / defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement as follows: “9(A) The plaintiff has to implead the said Manchala Rama Krishna Reddy as party to the suit. The said Manchala Rama Krishna Reddy is in possession of the property with absolute rights after execution of the Regd. Sale deed, dated 17.06.2019. Without impleading the said Machala Rama Krishna Reddy as party to the suit, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be refereed as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed by the defendant in support of I.A.No.527 of 2024, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for specific performance of an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed the written statement opposing the suit and clearly stating that the plaint schedule property was sold out by the defendant on 23.01.2019 under an agreement of sale in favour of Manchala Rama Krishna Reddy and according to the terms of the agreement of sale, the defendant executed 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1043 of 2025 a registered sale deed on 17.09.2019 (sic. 17.06.2019) in favour of Manchala Rama Krishna Reddy and since then, the defendant has not been in possession of the property, and therefore, the defendant cannot execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. Hence, it is just and necessary to amend the written statement as per the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit, or cause prejudice to the respondent or introduce a new case. 5. The petition was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff stating as follows: a. The petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has to file petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. as the proposed amendment is to implead Manchala Rama Krishna Reddy as a party to the suit and that too, as the registered sale deed was executed in the year 2019, the defendant filed his written statement beyond the period of three years, and therefore, the present petition is barred by limitation. b. As per Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. The petitioner took several adjournments for his cross-examination from 23.02.2023, 20.03.2023, 19.04.2023, 26.02.2023, 27.02.2023, 21.08.2023, 21.09.2023, 12.10.2023, 10.11.2023, 13.12.2023, 22.01.2024, 27.02.2024, 29.04.2024, 08.07.2024, 24.07.2024, 12.08.2024, 04.09.2024, 24.09.2024, 14.10.2024 and on the last occasion, i.e., on 29.11.2024. As per the affidavit of the petitioner, there is an agreement of sale. There is enormous delay in filing the petition. There is inconsistency with regard to the dates, i.e., either 17.09.2019 or 17.06.2019 and the pleas taken. Therefore, the proposed amendment 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1043 of 2025 would alter the basic structure of the suit and cause prejudice to the respondent. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition with the following observations: “It is clear from the counter that the respondent / plaintiff is disputing amendment only on the ground that the petition (sic. was) not filed within time, and trial was commenced. Except said ground nothing was denied by the respondent. As seen from the records, suit is coming for cross-examination of PW1, and cross-examination of PW1 was not yet commenced. So, it is clear that plaintiff’s, i.e., PW1 evidence was not closed. It is clear that adding of para 9A will not change the nature of defence, as para 9 of written statement clearly mentioned about the sale of defendant. If the petitioner / defendant is permitted to amend the written statement for the relief sought in respect to adding of para 9A as prayed for, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent / plaintiff. Hence, considering the fact, the proposed amendment is not causing any prejudice to the contentions of the respondent / plaintiff, this Court is inclined to permit the petitioner / defendant to amend the plaint (sic. written statement), as per the proposed amendments shown in the petition, as prayed for.” 7. Aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff preferred this revision mainly raising the following grounds: 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1043 of 2025 1. The order under revision is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the order impugned, if allowed to continue, would cause irreparable loss to the revision petitioner; 2. The proposed amendment is not necessary to determine the real issue in controversy; 3. Instead of filing petition under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., to implead Manchala Rama Krishna Reddy, the respondent filed the present amendment petition; 4. The order impugned is unsustainable 8. Any amendment to the pleadings in a plaint or written statement is governed by Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC which permits an amendment at any such of the proceedings by either party, however a rider is provided in the same provision, which is under. "Order VI Rule 17: 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, 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." 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1043 of 2025 9. It is settled law that the amendment pleaded before commencement of the trial is to be liberally allowed except when the proposed amendment is likely to cause prejudice to the other party or takes away the right occurred to other party when it is substantially barred by limitation etc. In this regard, the settled principles governing the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are stated in the decision of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited Vs Manohar Lal 1 . Referring to its earlier decisions, in Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs Narayanaswamy and sons2, after examining the entire previous case law on the factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments, the Supreme Court culled out the following principles in paragraph No. 67 of the judgment which reads as under: "67. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case. (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; 1 2017 (5) SCC 212 2 Neutral Citation: 2009 INSC 1179 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1043 of 2025 (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order VI Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 10. As per the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, whenever an amendment to a pleading is sought after commencement of the trial, it is required to state the reason for not being able to take the plea proposed to be taken before commencement of the trial. 11. Here, the petitioner has not stated any substantial reason. The reason to be stated for not taking any steps to get the pleading amended before commencement of trial, though is required, it is not an absolute mandate as the Court can also direct the parties to make suitable amendments where the case demands. 12. In the present case, the proposed plea is not in any way strange to the facts already pleaded in the written statement. It is only a consequential legal plea which, even in the absence of it, can also be taken up by the Court at the time of adjudication. However, to avoid unnecessary complication, if a specific plea is taken in the written statement, an issue in that regard can be framed and answered. 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1043 of 2025 Though the question of maintainability of the suit for not impleading the purchaser is a mixed question of fact and law, as is already noted, the fact involved in the case was already in the pleading, i.e., written statement and the proposed amendment is only the later part of it, i.e., legal aspect, in the mixed question of fact and law. It may not require additional evidence, if the plaintiff still proceeds with the suit as it is. But, if the plaintiff intends to implead the purchaser, the trial may take further time. In either case, the defendant cannot be blamed as the fact was already pleaded in the written statement originally filed. 13. The further contention that the petition is barred by limitation is absolutely baseless as the petitioner is not seeking any relief against the proposed party or against the plaintiff with regard to enforcement of any right against the parties. Since the present petition is only to take an additional plea, the proposed amendment does not either change the cause of action or prejudice the plaintiff as the basic fact was already pleaded in the original written statement. 14. For all these reasons, there is no need to interfere with the order impugned in the revision. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.07.2025 RAR