1 APHC010458962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2214/2025 Between: 1. THAMMALA ABBIGARI SIVA MOHAN REDDY, S/O T.A. PEDDA NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 47/330- 4, RAVINDRA NAGAR, CHEMMUMAIPETA, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. YENUGU SEKHAR REDDY, S/O Y BALA CHENNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O APPARAO PALLE, MAZARA, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516289 2. KAMBAM NAGENDRA REDDY, S/O K NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 2/107, MAMMUSIDAPALLI, PENDLIMARRI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT 3. SUDA NAGARAJU REDDY, S/O S NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D NO. 2/14, CHOUTAPALLI VILLAGE, PENDLIMARRI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The present civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.181 of 2025 in OS No.62 of 2025 on the file of the court of the additional senior civil judge, kadapa allowing the application for amendment of plaint under order VI rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The parties to this civil revision petition hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 2. The case of the petitioner/defendant is that, notice was served on the petitioner/defendant, in O.S. No. 62 of 2025, dated 25.06.2025. After the issuance of notice, the petitioner/defendant appeared in the suit. However, prior to his appearance, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 167 of 2025 in O.S.No.62 of 2025 seeking for amendment of the claim/prayer/relief on the ground of a typographical error, wherein the claim/prayer/relief of the respondent/plaintiff was erroneously mentioned. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once notice has been issued to the petitioner/defendant in the suit, any interlocutory applications or petitions subsequently filed by the petitioner/plaintiff are also required to be served upon the petitioner/defendant. It is further contended that the court is bound to 3 afford the petitioner/defendant an opportunity of hearing before passing any order thereon. However, in the present case, though notice was issued in the suit, neither notice was served nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/defendant in respect of I.A. No. 181 of 2025. Nevertheless, the court below proceeded to allow I.A. No. 181 of 2025 by order dated 30.06.2025. Hence, the said order, having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/defendant, is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the relief sought in the interlocutory application pertains only to the correction of a typographical error in the cause of action. It is contended that since the court below has satisfied that I.A. No. 181 of 2025 related solely for rectification of a technical typographical mistake, the same could be allowed without issuance of notice. As no other substantive issue was involved and the matter was purely technical in nature, the order passed in I.A. No. 181 of 2025 cannot be faulted on the grounds urged by the petitioner. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, perused the material available on record, and examined the order of this Court dated 01.07.2025, it is observed that, admittedly, 4 notice was issued in O.S. No. 62 of 2025, and the petitioner/defendant had received the same subsequent to the filing of the suit. The subject I.A. No.181 of 2025 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, seeking for amendment of the claim on the ground of a typographical error in the cause of action, was allowed by the court below without issuance of any notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/defendant. It is a well-settled principle of law that in civil proceedings, once notice has been issued and served upon the defendant, any interlocutory application filed by either of the parties should be considered only after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties to the proceedings. Even when the issue is pertaining to a technical error or typographical mistake, the court is bound to provide such opportunity before passing any order. Therefore, the order dated 01.07.2025, having been passed ex parte, is contrary to the settled principles of law. 6. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed in I.A. No. 181 of 2025 in O.S. No. 62 of 2025 by the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, is hereby set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 181 of 2025 is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of the civil revision petition with a direction to the court below to consider and dispose of the said application on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, 5 after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent. 7. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 15.09.2025 kkllkk 6 542 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P. NO: 2214 of 2025 15.09.2025 klk