APHC010107712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 621/2025 Between: 1. SHREE SAI GANESH BUILDERS, 10-169/2, FLAT NO. 301, SHREE RATNAMS CASTLE, VISALAKSHINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. G.V.V. STYANRAYANA, S/O SRI SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D.NO. 9-407/1, VISALAKSHINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. PEELA VENKATA RAO, S/o Suryanarayana Aged about 62 years, R/o. D.No. 10-27-2/3, Sampath Nilayam, FACOR Layout, Visakhapatnam, Visakhaptnam District. ...RESPONDENT 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 allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned order dt. 09-02-2023 passed in I.A.No. 416 of 2022 in O.S.No. 499 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil judge, Visakhapatnam and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 499 of 2021 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil judge, at Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the above CRP, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.621 of 2025 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri V Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.499 of 2021, before the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatna, for recovery of money. The petitioner described the respondent herein as “Peela Venkat Rao” in the said suit. 3. The respondent, in his written statement, contended that his name is “Pentakota Venkat Rao” and therefore the suit was not maintainable as the suit was filed against one “Peela Venkat Rao”. 4. The petitioner had thereupon filed I.A.No.416 of 2022 in O.S.No.499 of 2021, after the trial had commenced. The Trial Court took the view on the ground that the affidavit-in-lieu of chief examination of P.W.-1 had already been filed. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the written statement, pointing out this mistake, was filed on 06.12.2022, while the application came to be filed much later and the application requires to be dismissed on the ground for lack of diligence and on the ground that amendment should not be permitted after trial commences. 5. A perusal of the record would show that the suit was filed in the year 2021 and the present application came to be filed in October, 2022. The mistake committed by the petitioner in describing the respondent as “Peela 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.621 of 2025 Venkat Rao” cannot be taken as a ground for rejection of the plaint itself, especially when the petitioner had moved an application to make necessary corrections. The fact that the respondents appeared before the Trial Court and raised this contention, apart from other contentions, itself go to show that the respondent was fully aware of the fact that the suit was filed against him. 6. For these reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Revision Petition, by permitting the petitioner to carry out necessary amendments in the plaint and to change the description of the respondent from “Peela Venkat Rao” to “Pentakota Venkat Rao”. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 25.07.2025 MJA 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.621 of 2025 05 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 621 of 2025 25.07.2025 MJA