APHC010349842024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1832/2024 Between: V.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy ...PETITIONER A N D V Bala Nagi Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M KARIBASAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: O R D E R Challenging the Order, dated 20.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.354 of 2023 in O.S.No.621 of 2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Judge’) filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’), the petitioner herein/defendant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. Brief facts of the petition, filed before the trial Court, are that, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.621 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu against the petitioner herein/defendant for the relief of Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale. The petitioner herein/defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the respondent herein/plaintiff made in the plaint. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner herein/defendant that due to oversight, the petitioner herein/defendant did not take the plea that the schedule property is his ancestral property, got the same under Partition among his brothers; that the petitioner herein/defendant has got four children, therefore, his children also acquire equal right over the property and he has no absolute right to alienate the property and the said fact is known to the respondent herein/plaintiff, who is no other than the brother of petitioner herein/defendant. In spite of due diligence, the petitioner herein/defendant could not take the plea and it is only a legal plea and it does not change the defence, already taken by the respondent herein/plaintiff. 4. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed counter contending that the petitioner herein/defendant is the Manager of the family and he executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff; that the Agreement of Sale is binding on his children. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, vide Order, dated 20.02.2024 dismissed the IA No.354 of 2023 holding that the petitioner herein/defendant is not allowed to deviate from the earlier plea, when the proposed amendment would affect his earlier defence taken in the written statement and it would cause prejudice to the respondent herein/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. Heard. Perused the record. 7. The point that would arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is “Whether the trial Court committed any material irregularity in passing the impugned Order, dated 20.02.2024 in I.A.No.354 of 2023 in O.S.No.621 of 2015?” 8. Order VI Rule 17 CPC prescribes ‘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. Proviso to the said provision, stipulates 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. 9. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu V. Union of India & Ors.,1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the object of adding the proviso is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. In Vidyabai and others vs. 1 (2005) 6 SCC 344. Padmalatha and another2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the legislative intent behind bringing the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC. At paragraph No.7 of the said judgment it was opined that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC are in mandatory form. The court’s jurisdiction to allow an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied i.e., the court must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 10. A perusal of proposed amendment of pleadings mentioned in the petition, it goes to show that the petitioner herein/defendant intends to incorporate that the suit schedule property is his ancestral property and it is allotted to his share in the family partition among his brothers, and that, the children of the petitioner herein/defendant got right over the property and the petitioner herein/defendant alone is not entitled to execute the Agreement of Sale in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff. 2 AIR 2009 SC 1433. Page 6 of 7 11. Indeed, a perusal of the petition, nowhere, the petitioner herein/defendant avers as to what circumstances prevented him in mentioning those facts at the time of filing the written statement in O.S.No.621 of 2015. 12. For a while, if it is presumed that the respondent herein/plaintiff is well-aware of the same, he might have averred in the plaint pleadings that the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the ancestral property, and the respondent herein/ plaintiff acquired the said property in a partition among his brothers. As discussed supra, there is not even a sentence or a reason stated by the petitioner herein/ defendant, except stating that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent herein/ plaintiff if, the proposed amendment of pleadings is allowed. 13. This Court, on a plain reading of the proposed amendment of pleadings, is of the opinion that the petitioner herein/defendant raised fresh plea and came up with a petition seeking amendment of the same, which will not only change the entire nature of the suit proceedings, but also the defence of the petitioner herein/defendant. The petitioner failed to establish and satisfy the conditions precedent to allow the petition. The trial Court has rightly refused to exercise its discretion in allowing the proposed amendment, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and force and it is deserved to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY 31st January, 2025. DNB