APHC010208362024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. RAGIPINDI NARAYANAMMA, W/O. LATE R. ANKI REDDY, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 1 NEAR NEELIMA THEATER, ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2. B. ARUNA, W/O. NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 13 ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. AIIV 3. B. ANITHA, , W/O. CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, AGED 43YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 59, S.P.SAGAR RESIDENCY, BESIDE THRUAYMAJAL, HOSPITAL,BEHIND QAURMA CONVENTIONAL HALL, SAGAR HIGHWAY RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. 1. RAGIPINDI DURGA, D/O. SRINATHA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, OCC. STUDENT, D.NO. 261, HLC COLONY, ANANTHAPURAM ANANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAGIPINDI SRINATHA REDDY, ,S/O. ANKI RED OCC. BUSINESS R/O. D.NO. 13 ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 997/2024 RAGIPINDI NARAYANAMMA, W/O. LATE R. ANKI REDDY, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 1-319, DWARAKA NAGAR, NEAR NEELIMA THEATER, ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU B. ARUNA, W/O. NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO. 13-2-670,RANIACHANDRANAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. AIIV B. ANITHA, , W/O. CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, AGED 43YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 59, S.P.SAGAR RESIDENCY, BESIDE THRUAYMAJAL, HOSPITAL,BEHIND QAURMA CONVENTIONAL HALL, SAGAR HIGHWAY RANGA REDDY ...PETITIONER(S) AND RAGIPINDI DURGA, D/O. SRINATHA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, OCC. STUDENT, D.NO. 261, HLC COLONY, ANANTHAPURAM ANANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. RAGIPINDI SRINATHA REDDY, ,S/O. ANKI REDDY, AGED MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. D.NO. 13-2-670,RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RAGIPINDI NARAYANAMMA, W/O. LATE R. ANKI REDDY, AGED 78 319, DWARAKA NAGAR, NEAR NEELIMA THEATER, ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU B. ARUNA, W/O. NAGESWARA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. 670,RANIACHANDRANAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU,ANATHAPURAMU DISTRICT. AIIV B. ANITHA, , W/O. CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, AGED 43YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 59, S.P.SAGAR RESIDENCY, BESIDE THRUAYMAJAL, HOSPITAL,BEHIND QAURMA CONVENTIONAL HALL, SAGAR HIGHWAY RANGA REDDY ...PETITIONER(S) RAGIPINDI DURGA, D/O. SRINATHA REDDY, AGED MAJOR, OCC. STUDENT, D.NO. 261, HLC COLONY, ANANTHAPURAM DY, AGED MAJOR, 670,RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 2 ...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 to Petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order dt 27.02.2024 passed in LA. No. 459 of 2023 in O.S. No. 531 of 2017 on the file of Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu IA 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS.No.531 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G RAMA MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SESHADRI GOALLA 2. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 3 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.459 of 2023 in O.S.No.531 of 2017 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. 2. The Revision Petitioners are the petitioners/defendant nos.2 to 4, whereas respondent no.1 is the respondent no.1/plaintiff and respondent no.2 is respondent nos.2/defendant no.1 in I.A.No.459 of 2023 in O.S.No.531 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. 3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that: (i) In the suit filed by the respondent no.1/ plaintiff vide O.S.No.531 of 2017 for partition of the plaintiff schedule properties, the defendant nos. 2 to 4 therein filed petition vide I.A.No.459 of 2023 under Or.6, Rule-17 CPC, read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement, contending that due to oversight the Advocate failed to mention in the written statement that plaint schedule property is self acquired property of late R.Ankireddy and even after family settlement and the said amendment is RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 4 very much crucial and essential for adjudication of the matter in right perspective, else much and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused. (ii) The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed counter resisting the claim made by the petitioners for amendment contending that the executants clearly mentioned in the Will that the suit schedule property fell to his share in the partition effected on 24.03.1999 and further the petitioners who were in possession of the Will even at the time of filing written statement in this suit as well as in earlier suit in O.S.No.173 of 2007. The contention of the petitioners that due to oversight they could not take the plea that the plaint schedule property continued to be separate property of R.Ankireddy is absolutely false and contrary to the contents of the registered Will relied on by them and therefore, since the petitioners failed to prove that they could not plead in the written statement earlier despite of their due diligence, the petition filed seeking amendment cannot be allowed. (iii) Upon considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material available on record, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition holding that oversight of an Advocate in omitting to take a plea in the written statement cannot be a ground to allow amendment that too at the fag end of trial and further no ground is made out to believe that the petitioners could not seek amendment before RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 5 commencement of trial and that amendment of written statement at the fag end of trial could cause prejudice to the plaintiff. (iv) The said dismissal order has been challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri G.Ramamohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 5. Sri G.Ramamohan Reddy, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court and grounds of revision would contend that the Amendment of a plaint and a written statement under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stand on different footings and the Courts should be more liberal in allowing amendments to written statements, since the same would neither change cause of action or nature of suit and moreover would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. He would further contend that allowing the amendment would not amount to withdrawal of admissions already made and further it is fairly settled that that the defendant can take inconsistent pleas in a written statement and take all the grounds that are available to them. He would further contend that the proposed amendment is only to insert the pleading that the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of executor of the RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 6 Will, which could not be taken due to oversight and therefore, dismissal of the application on the ground that it was filed at fag end of the trial and lack of due diligence are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 6. On the other hand, Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, justified the impugned orders contending that the defendants, who have knowledge of the Will did not take the plea that the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the executor of the Will and moreover the said contention is against the contents of the Will. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge upon meticulous analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ambit of Order-VI, Rule-17 of Code of Civil Procedure, having found that the amendment has been sought at the fag end of the trial and that too without exhibiting that despite due diligence they would not amend the written statement earlier, rightly dismissed the petition and the same requires no interference. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.2 adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of respondent no.1. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 7 9. The Amendment of a plaint and a written statement under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stand on different footings because courts are generally more liberal in allowing amendments to the written statement. While amendments to a plaint cannot fundamentally change the cause of action or nature of the suit, the defendant can, in many cases, add new defenses, alter defenses, or take inconsistent pleas, as these do not raise the same level of prejudice. The defendant may introduce entirely new, inconsistent, or alternative pleas to properly defend the case, which might not be permissible for a plaintiff. The key distinction is that the plaintiffs cannot replace their case, whereas the defendants can restructure their defense, provided it does not cause irreparable injustice to the plaintiff. 10. It is also fairly settled that a defendant can raise inconsistent or alternative pleas in a written statement to present a comprehensive defense, but these pleas cannot be mutually destructive and further admissions, if any, taken cannot be permitted to be taken away by way of amendment. 11. In the written statement the defendants took a defendnce that during his lifetime R.Ankireddy executed a registered Will bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendant nos. 2 & 4 and defendant no.1 is one of the attestors of the said registered will. By the way of the proposed amendment, the defendants want to plead that the plaint schedule RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 8 property is self acquired property of late R.Ankireddy and the same continued to be so even after the family settlement referred to in the Wills. 12. Therefore, the proposed amendment cannot either take away the admissions already made or mutually destructive of the pleas already taken in the written statement. 13. No doubt, the amendment is sought after commencement of trial. However, although not pleading due diligence is a significant hurdle, courts may still exercise discretion to allow amendments if they are crucial to resolving the actual dispute, provided it does not cause injustice to the other party. The procedural rules exist to facilitate, not obstruct, the administration of justice. While procedural law provides necessary order and discipline, it should be applied liberally to ensure that technicalities do not defeat substantial justice. In view of the nature of the proposed amendment as well as nature of the suit, since valuable rights in the property are involved in the suit, this Court is of the considered view that that learned trial Judge went wrong in holding that the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the other side. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and the same has to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.459 of 2023 in RC,J CRP No.997 of 2024 9 O.S.No.531 of 2017 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu. Consequently, I.A.No.459 of 2023 in O.S.No.531 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu is allowed. The learned trial Judge shall afford a fair and reasonable opportunity of filing rejoinder to the plaintiff. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 12th day of February, 2026. RR