APHC010472552024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2560/2024 Between: 1. SINGIREDDY REDDY MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, S/O JAYARAMI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR.NO. 3-145-8-E-2, 1ST CROSS, PRASANTH NAGAR, MADANAPALLE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. K MUNASWAMY, S/O LATE ERAGALLAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 2/253, SOCIETY COLONY, MADANAPALLE. 2. PAMMASANI YUGANDHAR NAIDU, S/O CHINNA SWAMY NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, BATHANI RAMAIAHGARIPALLE VILLAGE, PAKALA MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside order passed in IA.No.98/2020Dt. 17-09-2024 in MVOP No. 153/2015 on the file of Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum II Additional District Judge Madanapalle thereby allowing the same as prayed for and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings in MVOP No.153/2015 pending on 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 the file of Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, by passing the other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JITENDRA KANYALUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 The Court made by following ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2024 in I.A.No.98 of 2020 in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, allowing the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit the petitioner to amend the claim petition, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2015. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant and the 2nd respondent herein is the 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2015. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to herein as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant filed the claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2015 under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 30.06.2015. After filing the written statements and after framing of issues, the trial has commenced and witnesses were examined on either side. After adducing evidence on either side, the matter was posted for arguments and was adjourned on several occasions. At that stage, the claimant filed I.A.No.98 of 2020 seeking permission of the Court to amend the claim petition on the ground that by mistake and due to over sight the number of the vehicle involved in the accident was mentioned as MH-12 CZ 8679 instead of MH-12 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 CZ 8697, which is bonafide and not intentional and the proposed amendment will not change the nature and characteristic of the case. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed independent counters, contending that the amendment cannot be permitted as the proposed amendment itself would change the entire nature of the claim, that too such amendment will not be permitted after the evidence is adduced. Further, there was abnormal delay in filing such petition and no reasonable grounds are pleaded for seeking such amendment and such amendment could have been raised at the earliest point of time and not at the stage of arguments. 4. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pitani Suryanarayana v. Repaka Venkataramana Kishore1, allowed the petition, holding that amendment can be allowed under exceptional circumstances, when it does not cause injustice to other side and when it does not affect the right already accrued. Assailing the said order, the present civil revision petition came to be filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. None appears on behalf of respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal grossly erred in allowed the petition filed for amendment in a very casual manner without following the parameters provided under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. He submits that the evidence on either side has already been closed 1 1(2009) 11 SCC 308 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 and the O.P. is coming up for arguments and underwent several adjournments. At that stage, the claimant filed the present petition for amendment, to drag on the matter without any reasonable ground. 7. The only point that arises for consideration herein is whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the petition filed for amendment for altering the number of the vehicle stated to be involved in the accident? 8. Before dealing with the issue herein, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., which reads as under: 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. 9. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it governs the amendment of pleadings, allowing a party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Amendments are liberally allowed but must not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party, or circumvent the law of limitation. If trial has already begun, the party seeking the amendment must demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made earlier despite 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 due diligence. If the amendment is sought after the commencement of the trial, the party must show that they could not raised the new facts or grounds earlier despite exercising due diligence. The proviso under this Rule further says that after the trial has commenced, an application for amendment shall not be allowed. The proviso under this Rule restricts the power of the court to allow amendments of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, it might be allowed if the court thinks that, in spite of due diligence, it was not possible for the party to raise the matter before the trial commenced. 10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed I.A.No.98 of 2020 after the evidence of the petitioner and as well as the respondent was completed and the matter was posted for arguments, requesting the Court below to permit him to amend the claim petition by changing the number of the vehicle involved in the accident as MH 12 CZ 8697 instead of MH 12 CZ 8679, for which a counter was filed by respondent No.1 duly stating that the alleged accident took place 30.06.2015 at 08.00 p.m. As per Ex.A.1 F.I.R. As per which, the number of the vehicle involved in the accident is MH 12 CZ 8690. After registration of the FIR, police examined the complainant and other witnesses, who have categorically stated that one motor cycle No.MH 12 CZ 8690 was involved in the accident. However, the petitioner filed the claim petition alleging the involvement of vehicle bearing No.MH 12 CZ 8679. Even during the cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that he deposed before the police that the vehicle bearing No.MH 12 CZ 8690 was involved in the accident, which statement was marked as Ex.B.1. During the cross 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 examination of R.W.1 and R.W.2, the petitioner has questioned with regard to the involvement of motorcycle bearing No.MH 12 CZ 8679 and he did not put any question regarding involvement of motorcycle No.MH 12 CZ 8697. 11. Keeping the above principle in mind, it has to be looked into whether the Tribunal had followed the principles within the parameters of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. in allowing the petition. Having gone through the order impugned, this Court found that the Tribunal did not state whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The prayer for amendment of claim petition is about change of vehicle number as MH-12-CZ-8697 instead of MH-12-CZ-8679. However, at any point of time, either at the time of filing the claim petition or at the time of filing the chief affidavit as well as in the cross-examination, the registered number of the vehicle was not disputed. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition for amendment would show that even the claimant did not state as to why he could not file such a petition at the earliest point of time and nothing prevents him from filing such a petition, even if it is really a bona fide or a justifiable mistake. 12. It can also observed that the petitioner initially filed a complaint before the police alleging the involvement of vehicle bearing No.MH 12 CZ 8690, but however, he filed MVOP alleging that the vehicle bearing No.MH 12 CZ 8679 is involved in the accident, but after completion of evidence of the petitioner and as well as the respondents, the petitioner comes with an application under 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. requesting to amend the number of vehicle from MH 12 CZ 8679 to MH 12 CZ 8697. All these facts would go to show that the petitioner is playing fraud with the Courts and on the other hand the amendment sought for by the petitioner will change the scope of the main O.P. itself. 13. In “Nimmakayala Seetha Vs. Kothapalli Ramesh Kumar 2 ” and “Y.Venkataramana Reddy, Chittoor District Vs. Smt. D.Jayamma, Chittoor District3” this Court categorically held that as per Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. after commencement of trial, no application for amendment shall be allowed. 14. Therefore, keeping in view the principle stated supra, and the parameters provided under the provision, for sheer lack of due diligence on the part of the claimant in raising the plea at the earliest point of time, allowing of petition for amendment for the purpose of mere changing the registered number of the vehicle lacks any merit, and hence, the order under revision suffers from serious legal infirmity and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 17.09.2024 in I.A.No.98 of 2020 in M.V.O.P.No.153 of 2015 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 2 2015 (2) ALD 730 3 2017 (5) ALT 666 9 VS,J C.R.P.No.2560 of 2024 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:12.09.2025 KBN