APHC010393582024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2061/2024 Between: Bandaru Sree Ramulu ...PETITIONER AND Bellam Saimon and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY The Court made the following Order: The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.529 of 2023 in O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla (for short “trial Court”). 2. Heard Mr.V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 3. This Court, vide order, dated 18.09.2024, has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court ought to have allowed the I.A.No.529 of 2023 filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to amend the plaint and consequential amendments in the plaint, which would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. He further submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the amendment which is sought would not cause any harm to the respondents as the petitioner has sought to add prefix “Harijana” in front of petitioner’s name and his father in the cause title and also wherever it is required and if the same is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to other side and the trial Court ought to have seen that the said fact is borne by a document issued by the government authorities and is on record before the learned trial Court. He further submits that the trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment application as the said amendment would not expand the scope of the plaint and would not change the nature of the suit and the conclusion of the trial Court that the amendment application is filed at later stage with a delay is not justifiable for the reason that the amendment application can be filed at any stage of suit and dismissing the petition on the ground of delay is untenable. He further submits that the trial Court ought to 3 have seen that the petitioner also produced the documents to show that in front of his name “Harijana” word is there and hence, his claim is supported by a document and is on the record of the trial Court. But the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. by giving way for multiplicity of litigation and just basing on assumptions and presumptions and the trial Court ought to have allowed the I.A. to avoid litigation and also to give quietus to the litigation between the parties. 5. To support his contentions, learned counsel has placed a reliance on record on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC”. Therefore, learned counsel while relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.529 of 2023. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner herein filed a 1 (2022) 16 SCC 1 4 suit in O.S.No.6 of 2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Koilakuntla against the respondents for injunction and the same is pending for consideration. He further submits that the petitioner filed I.A.No.529 of 2014 in O.S.No.6 of 2014 for amendment of plaintiff and also consequential amendments in the plaint and after hearing both sides, the trial Court has dismissed the said I.A. He further submits that the proposed amendment is not necessary as per Order 16 Rule 17 that “all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in between the parties further” and no application shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the Court has come to a conclusion in-spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. He further submits that the trial has commenced on 07.12.2019, the petitioner filed Chief affidavit and subsequently, the matter has been adjourned and amendment petition filed after thought by changing advocates on 04.09.2023, without disclosing the purpose, relevancy and reason for amendment and the entire affidavit does not disclose the purpose of amendment and the suit is bare injunction based on prima facie of title and possession. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner filed Ex.A2 death certificate of his father dated 05.10.2009 and the same was enclosed under the list of documents filed along with plaint and as per the original death certificate, the petitioner’s father name was mentioned 5 as “BANDARU OBULESH” and subsequently for the purpose of wrongful gain, the petitioner obtained community and death certificate in the year 2023 by adding surname as “HARIJANA” in community certificate and whereas in death certificate as “HARIJANA @ BANDARU OBULESH” by colluding with revenue officials in village secretariat contrary to his earlier death certificate filed along with his plaint and moreover it is pertinent to mention here that there is other person, who is harijana obulesh in the village. He further submits that if the amendment is allowed, the petitioner may use court record for other wrongful purposes without following due procedure for change of surname, and the proposed amendment is not necessary for determining the real question in controversy and there is no illegality and infirmity in dismissing the petition for amendment. Therefore, learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.529 of 2023 in O.S.No.6 of 2014 stating that the said amendment is not necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and the petitioner/plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to prove the Ex.A1 by summoning the concerned Revenue Authorities or by producing relevant documents. 6 10. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court ought to have seen that the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and the same amendment would not cause any prejudice to the respondents herein. But the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A. by giving way for multiplicity of litigation. 11. Moreover, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that if the amendment is allowed, the petitioner may use court record for other wrongful purposes without following due procedure for change of surname, and the proposed amendment is not necessary for determining the real question in controversy. 12. This Court further observed that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India’s case (stated supra) had made the following observations: “71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 7 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defense.” 13. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, it is not for the Civil Court to change the surname, and that the petitioner has to resort the separate procedure contemplated under law. Therefore, this Court found no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 24-01-2025 BMS