1 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 APHC010467652024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2568/2024 Between: 1. BHUMIREDDY LAKSHMI PRASANNA, D/O LATE B.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY (RETD.DE),W/O ANNAVARAM SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS , HINDU,UNEMPIOYEE, RESIDING AT NALLAPUREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, PULIVENDULA (TALUK), KADAPA DISTRICT,PRESENTLY AT D.N0.EO2, R.K. MANSION, 1ST MAIN, NRI LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,BENGALURU. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BUMIREDDY KARUNAKAR REDDY, LATE B.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NALLAPUREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, PULIVENDULA (TALUK), KADAPA DISTRICT 2. BUMIREDDY PARTHA SARATHI REDDY, LATE B.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, AGED 42 YEARS, HINDU, EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT NALLAPUREDDY PALLI VILLAGE, PULIVENDULA (TALUK), KADAPA DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.N0.I29/IA, 6TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA NEW EXTENSION, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, NEAR H.D.F.C. BANK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560034 HAVING DIED HIS LRS NO.3 TO 5 3. BUMIREDDY SOUBHAGYA, W/O LATE PARTHA SARATHI REDDY, HINDU, AGED 44 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE. 2 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 4. BUMIREDDY CHENNA SHISHIR REDDY, S/O LATE PARTHA SARATHI REDDY, HINDU, STUDENT, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, (A MINOR REP.BY HIS MOTHER B.SOUBHAGYA (3RD DEFENDANT) 5. BUMIREDDY HARSHITH REDDY, S/O LATE PARTHA SARATHI REDDY, HINDU, STUDENT, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, (A MINOR REP.BY HIS MOTHER B.SOUBHAGYA (3RD DEFENDANT) DEFENDANTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT D.NO.L29/1A, 6TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA, NEW EXTENSION, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, NEAR H.D.F.C. BANK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560034 ...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 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 all further proceedings in O.S. No.33 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the above Revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.502 of 2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2017 on the file of Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint pleadings. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents with the following relief: “A. Dividing the plaint schedule properties into three shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff herein by taking into consideration the good and bad qualities of the plaint schedule properties by specific merits and bounds. B. Consequently declaring that the partition deed dated 02-11- 2016 that was entered between the defendants under the document No.3707/2016 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. C. The defendant No.1 and defendants NO: 3 to 5 may be restrained from alienating the plaint schedule properties to the 3rd parties till partitioning of the properties in final proceedings by granting permanent injunction…” 3. After commencement of trial in the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.502 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to include two items in the schedule as the petitioner came to know about them at a belated stage. The trial Court, vide order dated 24.09.2024 has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by observing that the 4 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 petitioner has filed the said application to fill up the lacunas in the suit and that she failed to prove that in spite of due diligence, she could not show them in the plaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during trial, while the petitioner was being cross examined, she was put to a question as to why two items of properties i.e. item No.4 in A-schedule and item No.3 in B-schedule of partition deed dated 02.11.2016, were not mentioned in the suit schedule. Subsequently, the petitioner verified the certified copy of the partition deed dated 02.11.2016 and found that the said items of properties were not included in the suit schedule properties. At the time of filing of suit, though the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Pulivendana, as she was informed that market value certificates will not be issued, she could not include the said items of properties in the suit schedule. But, without considering the same, the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. He further contended that time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been observing that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment of pleadings, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as 5 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 it appears to the Court just and proper. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the trial Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner has filed the said petition for amendment of plaint pleadings after commencement of trial and after examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, which is not maintainable as per law. The fact that the petitioner filed the suit before the trial Court to declare the partition deed dated 02.11.2016 as null and void itself would show that the petitioner has complete knowledge about the contents of the said partition deed. Having complete knowledge about the contents of the partition deed dated 02.11.2016, the petitioner cannot file an application seeking amendment of the suit schedule. He further contended that the order passed by the trial 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, the petitioner herein has filed the suit for partition with respect to the plaint schedule properties containing item Nos.1 to 21. After commencement of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.502 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment to include some more properties being Nos.22 and 23 in the plaint schedule properties and also to correct few add-ons to the properties already included. The plea taken by the petitioner for filing the amendment application is that she was handicapped in 6 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 filing market value certificates of the two items of properties. For better understanding of the case, Order VI Rule 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 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. 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. 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 1 2006 (6) SCC 498 7 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 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 amendment shows that, in spite of due diligence, he could not raise the plea previously. 10. Admittedly, on a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the application filed before the trial Court, it can be seen that the petitioner was put to a question on the aspect of non-inclusion of two items of properties in the suit schedule and subsequently, when the petitioner verified the certified copy of the partition deed dated 02.11.2016, she came to know about the same. Earlier, at the time of filing the suit, the petitioner is said to have approached the Sub-Registrar, Pulivendula for obtaining market value certificates, as the particulars of all the properties mentioned in the partition 2 AIR 1957 SC 444 8 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 deed dated 02.11.2016 are with the 1st respondent/defendant. But, she was informed that such market value certificates will not be issued. Hence, she could not include the two items of properties, which are now proposed to be included by way of I.A.No.502 of 2024. Hence, this Court feels that, the two items of properties, could not have been brought to the notice of this Court prior to the commencement of trial, despite due diligence by the petitioner. 11. In general, the plaintiff in a partition suit may not be aware of all the properties sought to be partitioned of the common ancestral properties and if during the pendency of the case, acquire such knowledge about some more properties that need to be partitioned or included in the partition suit, the amendment to add those properties cannot be refused on technical plea. 12. Ordinarily, in a suit for partition, all the properties should be included in the suit schedule to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as also following the principle of law that partition suit must generally include all the properties of the common ancestor, they should weigh over the second part that the trial has commenced. The procedural aspect, cannot override the substantial part. (Pitta Samadana Swarooparani and Ors. Vs. Pitta Kumari and Ors.3) 13. In view of the above, even if the proposed items of properties i.e. item Nos.22 and 23 in the plaint schedule properties and few add-ons to the properties sought to be included are permitted, the same does not change the nature of the suit. The suit still remains the suit for partition and the claim of 3 2025 (3) ALD 681 9 VS,J CRP.No.2568 of 2024 the petitioner still remains for the same specified share as claimed. Had the trial Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner, the same would have avoided the multiplicity of legal proceedings. Therefore, the civil revision petition deserves to be allowed. 14. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.502 of 2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2017 on the file of Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the I.A.No.502 of 2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2017, is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:31.10.2025 Gss