APHC010593442023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3021/2023 Between: 1. MUNAGALA KRISHNA KISHORE, S/O LATE MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D. NO.17/272, SLATERPETA, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GANTASALA JAGAN MOHAN RAO, (DIED) 2. GANTASALA ARAVIND, S/O LATE JAGAN MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O D. NO. 9/72, BANTUMILLI ROAD, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 toAggrieved by the order dated 18-07-2023 made in IA No. 301 of 2023 in O.S. No. 266 of 2019 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 0.S No. 266 of 2019 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District, pending disposal of main C.R.P. and to pass such 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.3021/2023 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM 2. 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.3021/2023 The Court made the following ORDER: The present civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 18.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.301 of 2023 in O.S.No.266 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the deceased 1st respondent/ sole plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.266 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District against the petitioner herein, seeking eviction. The petitioner/defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement. After the death of the original sole plaintiff, his son came on record as legal representative under the guise of Will deed dated 03.11.2003. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff got impleaded himself as legal representative of the sole plaintiff as per the orders in I.A.No.506 of 2020, dated 25.03.2022. 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff also filed an application vide I.A.No.301 of 2023 in O.S.No.266 of 2019 under Order VI, Rule 17 and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, seeking to amend few portions of the plaint with regard to arrears of rent and further rent pending litigation, and the said application was allowed by the trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2023. Challenging which, the present civil revision petition is preferred. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing the respondents. 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.3021/2023 4. When the revision petition came up for admission on 24.11.2023, this Court passed the following interim order: “There shall be stay for a period of three weeks.” The said interim order was extended from time to time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the pendency of the suit, 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff herein came on record in the suit as 2nd plaintiff, being the legal representative of the sole plaintiff vide I.A.No.506 of 2020, dated 25.03.2022, basing on the alleged Will said to have been executed by the deceased 1st respondent/1st plaintiff on 03.11.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondents are not entitled to any relief from this Court beyond the original pleadings taken by the deceased 1st respondent/plaintiff in the plaint, as such, requested to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Court below. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that during pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died and 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff is contesting the suit, being the legal representative of the deceased original plaintiff, by virtue of the Will dated 03.11.2003 executed by his father. He further contended that since the suit filed for eviction of the petitioner herein, amending the plaint seeking arrears of rent and future rent does not amount to introducing a new plea, and hence, the order passed by the trial 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.3021/2023 Court need not be interfered by this Court and that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Perused the entire material available on record. 8. Admittedly, 1st respondent herein, filed the suit for eviction against the petitioner herein, in respect of the plaint schedule property. He died during pendency of the suit, and later, 2nd petitioner came on record as legal representative of the original plaintiff. During pendency of the suit, 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff filed I.A.No.301 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, for amendment of the plaint. For better understanding of the case, Order VI Rules 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted hereunder: “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. It can be understood from the above that Order VI Rule 17 CPC consists of two parts viz. the first part is that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.3021/2023 controversies raised between the parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh1, observed that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It is further observed that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC restricts the Courts from permitting an amendment to be allowed in the pleadings of either of the parties, if at the time of filing such application, the trial has already commenced. However, the Court may allow amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. It further observed that commencement of trial must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As such, it is not that once the trial has commenced, the amendment cannot be allowed. It can be allowed if it is necessary and if due diligence is shown by the party applying for amendment as to why it could not be made earlier. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Harish Chandra Bajpai Vs. Triloki Singh2, held that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC only limits the scope of jurisdiction of the Court to permit amendment of pleadings after the commencement of the trial and the proviso does not create an absolute bar or shut out the entertaining of an application for amendment, post commencement of trial, but only permits it to be allowed if the party seeking 1 2006 (6) SCC 498 2 AIR 1957 SC 444 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.3021/2023 amendment shows that, in spite of due diligence, he could not raise the plea previously. 10. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that 1st plaintiff, who instituted the suit, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property, died pending the proceedings, and his son, 2nd respondent herein, came on record as his legal representative. Thereafter, 1st respondent filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the subsequent events and to suitably modify the pleadings in conformity with the rights devolved upon him. The Court below, upon examining the nature of amendment sought found that the petitioner is still continuing in the plaint schedule property, as such, he is liable to pay the future rents. The objection raised by the petitioner that 2nd respondent is not entitled for the future rents and hence the proposed amendment is not permissible, is legally untenable, as the same cannot be decided at this stage. The proposed amendment is essential for adjudication of real question in controversy, between the parties to the suit. The amendment was therefore allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectually adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 11. The discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing the amendment is well-reasoned and aligned with the settled principles of law governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.3021/2023 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 30.10.2025 KAS