APHC010063602026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 455/2026 Between: 1. BURUGUPALLI VENKATA KRISHNA RAO,, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 48 YEARS R/O DOOR NO. 1-6, RAVINDRA VIDYA NAGAR DENDULURU V AND M, ELURU DISTRICT, W.G.DT. 2. BURUGUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 1-6 RAVINDRA VIDYA NAGAR, DENDULURU V AND M, ELURU DISTRICT, W.G.DT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SMT PICHUKALA NALINI DEVI, W/O NARENDRA AGED 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-121/1 NEAR DURGAMMA TEMPLE, GANDHI CENTER KONALA-534 146, TANUKU MANDAL, W.G.DIST. 2. PICHUKALA ABHIRAM, S/O NARENDRA, NOW AGED 19 YEARS (WHO WAS MINOR AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE SUIT, LATER DECLARED AS MAJOR PER ORDERS IN I.A.2/2024 DT.27.09.2024) AS R/O D.NO.2-121/1, NEAR DURGAMMA TEMPLE GANDHI CENTRE, KONALA-534 146 TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...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 toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 21-01- 2026 passed in IA No. 1203/2025 in OS.No. 37/2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, west Godavari District (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order for short) IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.37/2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, pending final disposal of the above C.R.P Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DAMARAJU MADHUSUDHAN VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANUKOLANU SRI SAI SANJAY The Court made the following ORDER:- 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the decree and order dated 21.01.2026 passed in I.A. No.1203 of 2025 in O.S. No.37 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 2. The petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, filed I.A. No.1203 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the written statement already filed by them by incorporating certain additional pleadings as stated in the accompanying affidavit and the proposed amendment. The said application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 21.01.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defendants/petitioners filed the application for amendment of the written statement only to bring certain additional facts on record. However, the trial Court rejected the said application on hyper-technical grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the application for amendment was filed immediately after the commencement of the trial and therefore the same ought to have been considered liberally. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the 1Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2024 in Dinish Goyal @ Pappu vs. 1 AIR 2024 SC 4779 Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that amendments should generally be allowed and should not be rejected on hyper-technical grounds, particularly when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. It was further observed that amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint. 5. He salso relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that while considering amendments to written statements, Courts should adopt a more liberal approach than in the case of amendments to plaints, as the question of prejudice is less likely to arise with the same rigour in the case of amendments to written statements. 6. He further contended that the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC restricts the power of the Court to allow amendments after commencement of trial, unless the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the application filed by the petitioners ought not to have been rejected on hyper-technical grounds and requests this Court to set aside the impugned 2 2006 (6) SCC 498 order and remand the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration of the application. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs relied upon the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and submitted that the said proviso clearly stipulates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. It is further submitted that in the present case the evidence of the plaintiffs had already been completed on 28.11.2025 after examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4. Thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence on behalf of the defendants. At that stage, on 01.12.2025, the petitioners/defendants filed the present application for amendment. Therefore, the application was filed after commencement of the trial and after completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, which is clearly barred under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, wherein the Apex Court considered various judgments including the judgment in Baldev Singh’s case and held that the trial commences once the issues are framed and steps are taken for recording evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of a witness amounts to commencement of trial. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the 3Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav, wherein it was observed that trial means the act of proving or judicial examination before a competent authority in accordance with law, and that the trial commences with the performance of the first act or step necessary to proceed with the trial. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the trial Court has rightly considered the application and recorded a finding that the facts sought to be introduced by the petitioners were already within their knowledge even prior to filing the written statement. The trial Court further observed that the proposed amendment is not merely a clarification or elaboration of the existing defense but seeks to introduce new factual contentions and a fresh legal defense, which would substantially alter the nature and scope of the defense and would cause prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the trial Court, after examining the nature of the amendment sought and the stage of the proceedings, rightly came to the conclusion that the amendment would materially alter the defence and that the application was filed only 3 2009 (s) SCC 409 after commencement of the trial and after completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence. Hence, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order as well as the judgments relied upon by both the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners filed the application for amendment after completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence. Though the written statement was filed in the year 2019, the petitioners did not choose to seek amendment of the written statement at any earlier stage during the pendency of the suit. The application for amendment was filed only after the evidence of the plaintiffs was concluded. The trial Court, upon consideration of the proposed amendment, recorded a finding that the amendment sought is not merely explanatory in nature but seeks to introduce new factual pleadings and a fresh legal defence which would materially alter the nature of the defence in the suit. The trial Court also observed that allowing such amendment at this stage would cause prejudice to the respondents/plaintiffs. 12. Having regard to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the stage of the proceedings, this Court finds that the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for lack of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 23.02.2026 klk 315 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH C.R.P.NO: 455/2026 23.02.2026 klk