* '.i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 561 OF 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 to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order, dated 20.12.2023 made in I.A.No.469 of 2023 in O.S.No.115 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principle Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, YSR District. Between: Eturi Subba Narasimha Reddy, S/o.Konda Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o.Cherolpallivillage, H/o.Putlampalli, Kadapa City. Mopuru Babu Reddy, S/o.M.Yella Reddy, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Occ.Cultivation, R/o.Boreddipalli, H/o.Koppolu, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa District. 1. 2. Kuncham Ramakrishna Reddy, Son of K.Veera Reddy, Aged about 52 years, R/o.BuddayapalliVillage, Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District. Chengalva Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.C.Venkatapati, Aged about 64 years, R/o.D. No.20/961, Cooperative Colony, Kadapa City, YSR District. 3. 4. ...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT 11 TO 14 AND 0 1. Madaka Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Madaka Narayana, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o.D.No.3/518, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa City, YSR District. ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF S/o.Rangalah, Aged about 83 years, Nagarajupet, Kadapa City, YSR 2. PabbisettiSubbarayudu, Occ.Business, R/o.D.No.4/27-1, District. 3. PabbisettiRanganayakulu, S/o.Rangaiah, Aged about 81 years, Occ. Kandipalem Street, Yerramukkapalli, R/o.D.No.1/1609 Business, Kadapa City and District. 4. Tellakula Ramachandra Rao, S/o.Polaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ.Business, R/o. D.No.5/89, Kotagadda Street,Kadapa City, YSR District. 5. Amanchi Subbarayudu, S/o.Pedda Subbarayudu, Aged about 59 years, R/o.D.No.5/42, Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa City, YSR District. 6. Chinthakuntala Veera Prasad Reddy, S/o C. Veera Reddy, Aged about Occ.Business, R/o GangavaramVillage, Kamalapuram 57 years Mandal, YSR District. 7. Tadigotia Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o.Chinna Venkata SubbaReddy, Occ. Business, R/o.PeddaputhaVillage, Vallur Aged about 58 years Mandal, YSR District. W/o.G.Subba Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occ. R/o.D. No.3/134, Potti Sreeramulu Street, Kamalapuram, 8. Gunda Sujatha Housewife, YSR District. 9. Dasamandam Vamsi Krishna, S/o.D. Sreenivasa Rao, Aged about 37 R/o.D.No.5/1882, Geetha Asramam Road, Dorasanipalli village. years, Proddutur Town, YSR District. ■.s' Nirmala, W/o G.Satyanarayana, Hindu, Aged about 51 R/o. D.No.3/1344, Potti Sreeramulu Street, Gunda years,Occ. Housewife Kamalapuram village and Mandal, YSR District. 10. Gunturu Gopala Krishnamurthy, S/o.G.Sreenivasulu, Aged about 64 years, R/o D. No.6/1, Yerraguntia, Kota village,Obulavaripall iMandal, YSR District 11. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 10 lA 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.115 of 2010 on the file of of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, YSR District, pending the Court disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER % APHC010087852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 561/2024 Between: Eturi Subba Narasimha Reddy, and Others AND ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) Madaka Lakshmi Devi and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VR REDDY KOWURl Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1 .A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY 2.AMANCHI ROYAL The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.561 of 2024 % ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of by the petitioners/defendant Nos.11 to 14 is directed against the I.A.No.469 of 2023 in O.S.No.115 Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, India, order, dated 20.12.2023, dismissing of 2010 on the file of the Kadapa, filed under Order VI, rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement in the above suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. of the defendants, as stated in the affidavit of defendant seeking amendment of the written The case No. 11 filed in support of the petition statement, in brief, is as follows; 3. filed the suit for declaration of right, injunction against the respondents No.2 to and against the petitioners/defendants 11 to of chief affidavit of defendant No.12 as DW2, the The 1®' respondent/plaintiff title and for permanent 11/defendant Nos.1 to 10 14. At the time of filing - a. certain typographical errors No.11 to 14. in defendants came to know that there were statement filed by the petitioners/defendants oversight occasioned at the time of drafting the wanton but due to the written The said mistake due to written statement, but is inadvertence only. Hence, it has become neither willful nor necessary to amend the written statement, b. The proposed amendment sought after the 1 statement, the words “Ac.1.20 cents in S.No.497/2E and also to be added. for reads as follows; lane of the written rd In the 3'" para. 1) 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.561 of 2024 In the 3^'" para, of the 6'*^ Lane of the written statement replace as Sy.No.498/11 instead of Sy.No.498/1. In the 5'^ para, of the lane of the written statement 2) 3) 1®' defendant instead of 2'^'^ defendant, of the Lane of the written statement replace as th In the 6"' para, replace as defendant instead of 2"^^ defendant. 4) filed counter with the following The respondent/plaintiff c. averments; The suit is at the stage of defendants’ side evidence (evidence of and at this belated stage, amendment of statement) cannot be permitted. The proposed to the root of the matter and as such, the same are defendant Nos. 11 to 14) pleadings (written amendment goes not simple typing errors documentary evidence. All the allegations are no bona fides or merits in the petition. The petition is liable to The proposed amendment is not supported by false and are denied. There are be dismissed. the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the amendment of written statement at the stage of 4. On merits. petition is filed for evidence and the proposed amendment is not supported by not entitled for the defendant’s document, and therefore, the petitioners are any relief to amend the written statement. the aggrieved defendants preferred this revision 5. Therefore petition. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the the written statement are not materially the S.N0.497/2E indicated in the 6. The learned proposed amendments to changing the line of defence as BSB,J Q r,P.No.561 of 2024 % same para No.3 at line included by way of is already there in the very proposed to be i amendment No.1 is No.6 and it is only the extent now He further second proposed instead of S.No.498/1 existing pleadings that the submitted of S.No.498/11 amendment, amendment which is a is only correction error in and clear from the u .r; Ho 498/11'. With regard to Ho.3 at line ^pographical error, the amendments, h , defendant. As both n^entioned instead of the typographical the para 3'^'^ and 4 second defendant was and 2'^'^ defendants claimed together as legal heirs Rangaiah who got the is mother Pubbisetty 1 property from his of the said property ^ the amendment judicial to the plaintiff. Pubbisetty Rangamma does not change the original owner the defence in any manner pre dent/plaintiff vehemently in drastic changes in already cross counsel for the 1*'respon if allowed, would bring m The learned contended that the petition and since 8. ,if witnesses were the plaintiff’s original written statement submitted that the other original statement he submitted _ amendments cannot defendants also based it cannot be already now the defence examined basing on the be permitted. He further the pleadings and, therefore in the That apart that effective trial was of amendments could be allowed altered now. original pleadings and by way trial already held held, basing on the that would destroy the add that in the were no ,, there answer them no changes He would also particulars therefore, now be altered. He original pleadings so as to and of the property mentioned cannot survey numbers, the whole case attempt to protract the trial, counsel for the petitioners only to explain further what was by changing the added that it is only an submitted that the already reply, the learned amendments are In 9. proposed J_ : BSBJ C.R.P.No.561 of 2024 pleaded in the written statement and, therefore, the petition ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. In view of the facts and the rival contentions, it is profitable to refer to the legal position relevant to the relief sought in the petition. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code reads as under: 10. “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.” In Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami ^ at paragraph Nos. 15 and 16, it was held as follows; 11. “15. It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bonafide one. In this connection, the observation of the Privy 2007 INSC 436 (Neutral citation) 6 BSB,J C.R.P.No.561 of 2024 % Council in the case of Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung [AIR 1922 P.C. 249] may be observed; taken note of. The Privy Council nothing but provisions intended administration of justice and it is, All rules of courts are to secure the proper therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet distinct cause of action to be been given to enable one substituted for another, nor amendment, the subject-matter of the suit. to change by means of settled principle that a prayer for for amendment of the different footings. The general 16. It is equally well amendment of the plaint and a prayer written statement stand on amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so of action or the principle that as to alter materially or substitute cause amendments to plaint. It has no nature of claim applies to counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or taking substituting or altering a defence or inconsistent pleas in the written objectionable while adding, altering or cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. statement would not be substituting a new 12 Thus, a liberal approach is required while permitting amendments and the same yardstick cannot be applied for amendment to a plarnt and amendment to a written statement. Amendments to wntten 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.561 of 2024 Statement are allowed more generously as chances for prejudice would be far less than that of in case of amendment of the plaint. No doubt, in the case on hand, the defendants are seeking the amendment after the commencement of the trial, and therefore, the proviso gets attracted. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment causes prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. As can be seen from the pleadings, it is purely a typographical mistake. 13. Thus, that the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the suit and that the application for amendment is bona fide and that the refusal of the amendment would lead to injustice and that on the other hand allowing of the amendment does not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. Further, on application of the settled legal principles set out supra, this Court finds that this is a case where the jurisdictional fact as envisaged in the proviso appended to Order VI, rule 17 of the Code exists and, that therefore, this Court could exercise the jurisdiction to allow the amendment. This Court finds that granting of the amendment sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation and also any complications at the time of execution of decree, in case of ultimate success of defendants in the suit. 14. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the proposed amendments to the written statement are not materially changing the line of defence of the defendants. Thus, this is a case fit to interfere with the order impugned. 15. BSB,J C.r.p.No.561 of 2024 8 ion Petition is allowed setting aside Principal Senior Civil Judge, Consequently Accordingly, the Civil Revision .12.2023, passed by the 16. the order, dated 20 Kadapa In I.A.No.469 of 2023 in O ,ANo.469 of 2023 shall stand allowed. .S.No.115 Of 2010 There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending shall stand closed. if any, //true copy// section officer To, Kadapa District. ior Civil Judge, Kadapa rEDDY KOWURl, SUNDAR REDDY V.R Section, High Principal Senior SRI Y R 1. The 2. One CC to 3. One CC to 4. The Section Officer 5. Three CD Copies Advocate [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh. SRI A SYAM Court of Andhra Pmg vna % HIGH COURT DATED: 18/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.561 of 2024 0 6 MAR 2025 I S'- ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS