APHC010393192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2126 OF 2025 Petition filed 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 set aside the Docket Order dated 10-03-2025 passed in I.A.No. 377 of 2024 in O.S.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District. Between: M.Mohammad Ghouse, S/o.M.Md.Ibrahim, aged about 53 years, C/o.Hummayun Basha, D.No.81-127-B, Near Jameela Bee Masjid, Venkataramana Colony, Kurnool. ...Petitioner/Respondent/1 Defendant AND 1. M.Mohammed Aslam Basha, S/o.M.Mohammad Ibrahim, aged about 47 years, H.No.46, MIG., APHB Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District. ... Respondent/Petitloner/4^^ Defendant M.Mohammad Ayub, S/o.M.Md.Ibrahim, aged about 52 years, D.No. 19/284, Fareed Sab Mohalla Street, Behind B.N.Talkies, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff lEV M.Nazimunnisa Beghum, W/o.M.Md.Shafee, aged about 42 years, D.No.2/85, 1®' Road, Cross, Near Railway Station, Anantapur. M.Saleemunnisa Beghum, S/o.M.Mukthar Ahmed, aged about 40 years, D.No.24/19, Mee Seva Kendram Upstairs, Kowdal Pet, Adoni, Kurnool District. M.Abdul Khadar, S/o.M.Md.Ibrahim, aged about 32 years. Manager, Operations-Olive Hospital, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants No.2, 3 and 5 3. 4. 5. (Respondents No.2 to 5 are not necessary parties in this Revision) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed 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 to grant interim suspension of Docket Order dated 10-03-2025 in I.A.No.377 of 2024 in O.S.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, pending disposal of above Revision. : SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B.R.S.KALYAN REDDY The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010439212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the seventeenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2126 of 2025 Between: ...Petitioners M. Mohammad Ghouse and ...Respondents M. Mohammad Aslam Basha and others Counsel for the petitioner: Butta Vijaya Bhaskar Counsel for the respondents: B.R.S.Kalyan Reddy The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.2126of 2025 O R D E R: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the' Constitution of India against the order ^dated 10.03.2025 allowing I.A.No.377 of 2024 in O.S.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni filed by the defendant No.4 under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the written statement by adding f^aragraph No.6 (a) which reads as follows; “It is further submitted that due to love and affection and bearing all the family affairs and medical treatments the father of this defendant who only gifted the item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property in favour of him in the presence of relatives on 23.08.2007 and delivered the possessions in favour of him, since then this defendant is paying the property taxes to the Municipality and also repairing the property from time to time. As such this defendant is became the absolpte owner and possessor of the same and it can’t be partition among the plaintiff and other defendants.” The respondent No.2 herein filed suit for partition. The respondent No.1 herein / the defendant No.4 sought amendment of his written statement contending that his counsel forgot to mention in the written statement, due to his long illness, about an oral gift made to the petitioner by his father on.23.08.2007 in the presence of his relatives and since then he has been in possession of the house shown as Item No.2 of the plaint schedule and also shop No.19 of 80 shown as item No.1 in the plaint schedule. The petitioner / defendant No.4 further pleaded that since the year 2007, he has been paying taxes in respect of both the properties and therefore, it is necessary to permit the petitioner to amend the written statement as requested above. 2. 3 C.R.P.No.2126of 2025 The respondent No.2 before the trial Court / defendant No.1 filed counter opposing the petition with the averments stated briefly follows:- 3. as If the petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement proposed, the nature of the suit will be changed from the relief of partition to the relief'of declaration and further, the proposed plea is also barred by limitation as the relief of declaration shall be sought within the period of limitation of three years from the date of denial of the title. The petition was filed at the fag end of the suit after examination of the witness and only to delay the further proceedings. The proposed amendment, if allowed, new issues have to be framed and the evidence is to be adduced afresh which would lead to de nova trial. The petitioner has not placed any evidence in support of his statement that he had informed his previous counsel regarding the plea of oral gift. The petitioner, being educated person, could have noticed absence of plea of oral gift in the written statement signed by him, if at all he had informed his counsel about the oral gift. The proposed amendment is about concocted facts completely ’ different from what was earlier pleaded. The proposed amendment would lead to great loss and injury to the respondents and the same cannot be compensated in any form. The petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. > as an 4. The respondent / defendant No.3 also filed counter opposing the petition stating briefly as follows:- The petitioner also filed the similar petition in I.A.No.468 of 2022 in the same suit and the petition was dismissed on 21.11.2022 on merits after filing of the counter. No revision was preferred against the said order. There are no bona tides in filing the present petition. It is frivolous petition only to delay the proceedings by making false and baselpss allegations. C.R.P.No.2126 of 2025 IK 5, The trial Court passed a cryptic order as follows: “Heard both sides Perused case record. For the reasons stated in petition affidavit and in order to avoid rightly contended by multiplicity of proceedings and as respondent counsel everything was brought on record earUer. further delay this petition is allowed as However, to avoid prayed for on payment and further directed to carry of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents out the amendment on or before 13.03.2025. Accordingly it is allowed. filed mainly, the order, this revision petition was passed without assigning valid Aggrieved by contending that the impugned order was 6. and justifiable reasons and that no reason was assigned by the trial Court for allowing the amendment after commencement of the trial inspite o proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. It is also contended as stated in the counters. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though initially there was no representation for the respondent No 1 herein, today the learned counsel requested for hearing before passing the order. Thus, the counsel for the respondent No.1 was also heard. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the, trial court committed serious error in allowing the petition, without for filing the' petition with inordinate delay 9. properly appreciating the reason after commencement of the trial, by a cryptic order, without stating any for allowing the petition, but merely stating unconvincing the trial, reasons stated in the valid reason reasons, such as, to avoid further delay in avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He contended that these petition, to 5 C.R.P.No.2126of2025 reasons are not sufficient to allow an application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. after commencement of the trial. He further submitted that the cross examination of a new version of case of regard, he submitted that the cross examination was evidence of the plaintiff was completed and the D.W.1 was also completed and at this juncture the defendant cannot be permitted. In this affidavit of D.W.1 was filed on 05.03.2020 and completed on 24.08.2023 and thereafter I.A.No.377 of 2024 was filed for amendment of the written therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. on 09.09.2024, the petition in statement and 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the submitted that the trial Court has discretion to allow t the trial Court exercised its jurisdiction, the order without cannot be interfered in the revision. He further submitted that plea can be taken at any stage and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He further submitted that the trial Court has given valid respondent No.1 amendment and as any infirmity any new reasons for allowing the petition and also imposed costs to inconvenience caused to the respondents in the petition, submitted that the respondent No.1 herein stated valid meet the Further, he reasons as to why commencement of the new plea taken, he submitted that it the amendment could not be sought before the trial. With r.egard to the nature of the was already disclosed in the cross examination of D.W.1 and therefore, it is not a new version introduced by way of amendment. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 11. First of all, whenever an amendment of a pleading is sought by a party after commencement of trial, the requirement under proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. i.e., the reason for not being able to seek such . amendment before the commencement of the trial, party seeking such amendment. In this shall be shown by case, a vague and unsupported allegation is stated as a reason to satisfy the provision. The respondent No.1 herein stated that his earlier counsel, who passed away, forgot to 6 C.R.P.No.2126of 2025 mention these facts in his written statement due to his long illness. This reason does not sound correct because the written statement was signed by the witness after it was prepared by his counsel. Later, the witnesses for the plaintiffs were also cross examined at length basing on the pleadings in the written statement and nowhere such ground was taken. That apart, this witness signed his affidavit in chief examination with the averments as in his written statement without reference to the so-called oral gift and subsequent events. Therefore, the reason assigned for not filing this petition before the commencement of the trial is not acceptable. fK. If at all he is in possession of the documents, he could have filed them along with the written statement or at least in his evidence as D.W.1 which was completed. If they were already filed, it is already part of evidence. Though a defendant can take inconsistent pleas or a new case, such a right is not unbridled and could depend on the bona fides in seeking the amendments and the prejudice that may be caused to the plaintiff on introducing a new plea after completion of material part of evidence during the trial on both sides. The likely prejudice cannot be ignored. An amendment cannot be permitted on mere asking. Facts and circumstances in each case shall be examined. The cryptic order passed by the trial Court to allow the petition is devoid of reasons valid to allow the amendment at this juncture. Merely to avoid further delay and by imposing costs, an amendment cannot be permitted without examining all the aspects which have been discussed above. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the trial Court allowing the petition to* carry out the amendment in the written statement is not sound on legal principles. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 12. 13. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 10.03.2025 in I.A.No.377 of 2024 in O.S.No.76 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni and the said I.A.No.377 of 2024 is dismissed. 7 C.R.P.No.2126of 2025 There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous pepons, if any, shall stand closed. -T SD/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Adoni, Kurnool District. One CC to Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri B.R.S.Kalyan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer VR Section High Court of A.P Two CD Copies BSV 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. TAC X:. •: -..j! HIGH COURT DATED: 17/10/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 2126 OF 2025 1 1 NOV 2025 is£urr«nt Sectioiix'^ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIOIN WITHOUT COSTS