APHC010439002024 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: 2331/2024 Between: 1. NEELAPU LAKSHMI PARVATHI, W/O.ACHIREDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.NEW COLONY, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. CHILLA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O.LATE KANAKAYYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.55-3-7, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BAKI ANANTHA LAKSHMI, W/O.YERRA REDDY, D/O.CHILA APPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6-3-68, DANTU VARI STREET, KOTHAPETA, KAKINADA. 2. SMT CHILLA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE CHILLA APPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.7-1-10, CHAKALI VARI STREET, GANDHINAGAR, KAKINADA. 3. SMT BASA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O.BALAJI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 36-10-64, VT JUNIOR COLLEGE. STADIUM ROAD, INNISPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY. 4. SMT SADI BUVANESWARI DEVI, W/O.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 38-1-6, SANDETI VARI VEEDI, INNISPETA, RAJAHMUNDRY. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2331/2024 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 the Orders dated 27.6.2024 in lA No.306 of 2023 in O.S.No. 463 of 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and 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 grant interim suspension of the Orders dated 27.6.2024 in lA No.306 of 2023 in O.S.No. 463 of 2018 passed by the Hon‟ble Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. HARI KRISHNA TATA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A S C BOSE The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2331/2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioners/respondents/defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.463 of 2018 challenging the order passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in I.A.No.306 of 2023 in O.S.No.463 of 2018, dated 27.06.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondents/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit in O.S.No.463 of 2018 seeking partition and separate possession, of the suit schedule property. The petitioners/defendant Nos.3 and 4 contested the suit wherein they have taken a plea that their mother is also proper and necessary party to the proceedings, and as she was an old lady, there is no conflict of opinion or interest about the property and share in the plaint schedule property. Thereupon, the 1st respondent/original plaintiff filed I.A.No.306 of 2023 in the said Suit under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity „the C.P.C‟) requesting the Court below to amend the plaint, by consequentially adding the mother of the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff to the suit proceedings. The said application filed by 1st respondent herein was allowed by the Court below vide order dated 27.06.2024. Challenging which, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in addition to the present suit, 1st respondent/plaintiff also filed suit in O.S.No.387 of 2018 on the file of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, without adding her mother. It is his contention that from the beginning of the case, the petitioners/defendant Nos.3 and 4 contended that the suit is bad for non- joining of necessary parties, that is not only the mother of the plaintiff but also other necessary parties, and amending of plaint at this stage after commencement of trial, is not permissible under law and as such, requested 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2331/2024 this Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the trial Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2 argued in support of the case and stated that the trial Court has rightly passed the order considering the legal position in various judgments and allowed the petition filed by 1st respondent, and as such there is no illegality in the said Order and requested to dismiss the revision petition. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order passed in Kolli Sita Rama Swamy Naidu v. T. Padma Rao @ Padma1, wherein the Court has held as under: 7…it is to be seen as to whether the parties sought to be impleaded in the present case i.e., the petitioner (and his sons) have a right to some relief in the suit and no effective decree can be passed in their absence and also as to whether the impleadment of parties would enlarge the scope and change the nature of the suit” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the order passed in Raja Pushpa Properties Pvt. Ltd v. B. Venkatamma 2 under similar circumstances the Court has held as under: “20. No doubt, Rule 17 of Order VI CPC confers power on the Court to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, proviso restricts that power, once the trial has commenced. Unless the Court satisfies that there is a reasonable cause for allowing the amendment normally the Court has to reject such a request.” 8. Perused the entire material available on record. 9. For better understanding of the case, Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is extracted hereunder: 1 2022 (6) ALD 561 (AP) 2 2020 (4) ALD 281 (TS) 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2331/2024 “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.” It can be understood from the above that Order VI Rule 17 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 controversies raised between the parties. 10. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh 3 , 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. The Court 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. 3 2006 (6) SCC 498 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2331/2024 The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Harish Chandra Bajpai Vs. Triloki Singh4, 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 amendment shows that, in spite of due diligence, he could not raise the plea previously. 11. Originally, 1st respondent herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property. As seen from the pleadings in the suit, the petitioners/defendants 3 and 4 took a specific plea in their written statement that mother of 1st respondent/original plaintiff is also a proper party to the suit and hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties. On a perusal of the material on record goes to show that the suit is at the stage of trial i.e. evidence of material witnesses on both sides is not yet completed in the suit. The suit is at the stage of recording evidence of P.W.1. At that stage, 1st respondent filed I.A.No.463 of 2018 under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to implead his mother as 2nd plaintiff to the suit and for consequential amendments in the plaint.. The plea taken by the petitioners for filing the amendment application is that their mother is also proper and necessary party to the proceedings, and that as she was an old lady and there is no conflict of opinion or interest about the property and share in the plaint schedule property, she was not added as a party to the suit. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, 2nd respondent herein is a proper party to the suit, and 1st respondent/plaintiff properly explained as to why she was not added as a party to the suit at the initial stage. The trial Court has ample power under Order VI Rule 17 to amend pleadings at any stage of the trial and as such, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not helpful to the petitioners as in 4 AIR 1957 SC 444 7 VS,J C.R.P.No.2331/2024 the present case. In view of the stage of the suit and the reasons assigned by the 1st respondent/original plaintiff and to effectively adjudicate the real questions in controversy between the parties, the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the implead petition and amendment petition, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, this Court does not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petition. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 30.10.2025 KAS 8 VS,J C.R.P.No.2331/2024 205 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2331/2024 Date: 30.10.2025 KAS