APHC010601162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. JAMPANA APPALA SAMBAMURTHY RAJU, ATCHUTARAMA RAJU, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, FLAT NO.204, MANOHAR VILLA, MIDHILAPURAM, VUDA COLONY, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM 1. SRI SAGI CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, (DIED) 2. SMT SAGI VEDAVATHI DEVI, W/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, GARIVIDI PRESENTLY R/O B.GOPALARAJU HOUSE, PHASE VUDA COLONY, MADHAVADHARA, NEAR RTO OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. SRI SAGI VISWANADHA RAJU, VARMA, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.9 PLOT NO.137, OPP.GAYATRI ENGIEERING COLLEGE, KOMMADI JUNCTION, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. SRI SAGI CHANDRA MOULI, S/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE 45 YEARS, NO.137, OPP.GAYATRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KOMMADI JUNCTION, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM 5. SRI SAGI SRIHARI, (DIED) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 264/2025 JAMPANA APPALA SAMBAMURTHY RAJU, ATCHUTARAMA RAJU, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, FLAT NO.204, MANOHAR VILLA, MIDHILAPURAM, VUDA COLONY, MADHURAWADA, ...PETITIONER AND SRI SAGI CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, (DIED) SMT SAGI VEDAVATHI DEVI, W/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, GARIVIDI PRESENTLY R/O B.GOPALARAJU HOUSE, PHASE-1, MIG VUDA COLONY, MADHAVADHARA, NEAR RTO OFFICE, SRI SAGI VISWANADHA RAJU, S/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.9 PLOT NO.137, OPP.GAYATRI ENGIEERING COLLEGE, KOMMADI JUNCTION, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-41. SRI SAGI CHANDRA MOULI, S/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.9-141, PLOT NO.137, OPP.GAYATRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KOMMADI JUNCTION, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-41. SRI SAGI SRIHARI, (DIED) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI JAMPANA APPALA SAMBAMURTHY RAJU, ATCHUTARAMA RAJU, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, FLAT NO.204, MANOHAR VILLA, MIDHILAPURAM, VUDA COLONY, MADHURAWADA, ...PETITIONER SMT SAGI VEDAVATHI DEVI, W/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, GARIVIDI 1, MIG-315, VUDA COLONY, MADHAVADHARA, NEAR RTO OFFICE, S/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O D.NO.9-141, PLOT NO.137, OPP.GAYATRI ENGIEERING COLLEGE, KOMMADI SRI SAGI CHANDRA MOULI, S/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA 141, PLOT NO.137, OPP.GAYATRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KOMMADI RC,J C.R.P.No.264 of 2025 2 6. SRI SAGI VIJAYA KUMAR RAJU, S/O LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA VARMA, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.9-141, PLOT NO.137, OPP.GAYATRI ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KOMMADI JUNCTION, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM-41. ...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 to allow the Revision by setting aside the orders dated 01-11-2024, passed in IA.No.583 of 2024 in OS.No.319 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and consequently allow the IA.No.583 of 2024, as prayed for and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS.No.319 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of CRP., and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA 2. 3. KIRAN BABU GODAVARTHI The Court made the following: ORDER Challenging the legality and correctness of the orders dated 01.11.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in dismissing I.A.No.583 of 2024 in O.S.No.319 of 2012 filed under Order-VI, Rule-17 of the RC,J C.R.P.No.264 of 2025 3 Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the plaint by inserting the words “from the estate of the deceased 1st defendant and a decree against D-2 and D-3 personally”, the petitioner therein preferred this Civil Revision Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 3. The material available on record would indicate that the petitioner filed a suit against respondent nos.1 to 3 for recovery of the amount borrowed under a promissory note. Pending suit, the respondent no.1 died, leaving behind him the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and others as his legal heirs. The petitioner filed application to bring other legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.1, who are respondent nos. 4 to 6 and the said application was allowed on 05.03.2018. However, amendment of prayer is not sought. Subsequently, when the matter stood posted for arguments, the petitioner filed the petition covered under the impugned orders seeking to add the words “from the estate of deceased 1st defendant and a decree against D-2 and D-3 personally” in the relief portion. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed that application holding that though the Legal Representatives were added long back, the petitioner was not vigilant is seeking appropriate RC,J C.R.P.No.264 of 2025 4 amendment to the relief and the amendment application was filed at a belated stage and that too after advancing arguments by both sides. 4. It is well settled law, no need of even making any reference to any pronouncement nor provision of law, that no personal decree can be passed against the Legal Representatives of the deceased borrower except passing a decree against the estate of the deceased borrower lying in the hands of the Legal Representatives. The personal decree passed against Legal Representative for realization of the amount borrowed by the deceased would be a nullity. 5. Procedural laws are the handmaid, not the mistress of justice. The procedural laws should serve to facilitate justice but not to hinder it. Procedural rules are designed to help courts hear and decide cases fairly, but they should not be applied in a way that prevents a just outcome. The procedural irregularities should not override substantive justice. 6. No doubt, the petitioner was not vigilant in seeking amendment of prayer while adding the Legal Representatives of the deceased borrower. However, that could not be a reason for the Court to prevent him from doing the same later, when the amendment sought is very much essential and the same in a way prevents just outcome. RC,J C.R.P.No.264 of 2025 5 7. It is fairly settled that approach of the Court should always be pragmatic but not pedantic. In the absence of the amendment also, the Court would not have passed personal decree against the Legal Representatives of the deceased borrower, but that cannot be a ground for desisting the petitioner from carrying out necessary amendments to plaint. Further, the amendment would not alter the nature of the suit and moreover no additional evidence is required to be let in owing to such amendment and therefore, stage of the suit is immaterial to carry out such an amendment. 8. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram passed in I.A.No.583 of 2024 in O.S.No.319 of 2012. Consequently, the petition is I.A.No.583 of 2024 in O.S.No.319 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Interim order shall stand vacated. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR