p. 1 APHC010378862019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3364/2019 Between: 1. BALLA RAVI KUMAR, S/O B.DORASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O MIG-460, AP HOUSING BOARD COLONY, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GUDIPATI RAMANJANEYULU, S/O LATE SUBBI REDDY, MAJOR, OCC- BUSINESS, 2. SMT GUDIPUTI NARASAMMA, W/O G.RARNANJANEYULU, MAJOR, OCC- BUSINESS, 3. GUDIPUTI RAGHAVENDRA, S/O G,RAMANJANEYULU, MAJOR, OCC- BUSINESS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT OPPOSITE TO THE HOUSE BEARING D.NO.6-3-241-1, RAMNAGAR, ANANTAPURAM. ...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 being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dt-24.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.790 of 2019 in O.S.No.110 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Anantapuram IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 please to grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.a.No.110 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Anantapuram, pending disposal of the main C.R.P in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: p. 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3364 of 2019 ORDER : 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2019 in IA.No.790 of 2019 in OS.No.110 of 2014 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge Ananthapuram. The petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed by the learned judge. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Order VI Rule 17 CPC would enable the amendment of plaint at any point of time before commencement of trial and that the Court can condone the statutory bar of not permitting the amendment. After commencement of trial, subject to the petitioner demonstrating that he could not have amended the plaint on a prior date, prior to the commencement of trial, in spite of his due diligence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places lands on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Seshambal (dead) Through LRs Vs. Chelur Corporation1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Courts are expected to examine impact of such subsequent developments on right to relief claimed by a 1 2010(3) SCC 470 p. 3 party and if necessary suitably mould the relief whereby permitting amendment to the pleadings. 4. In the matter of M/s.Chakreshwari Constructions Private Limited V/s Manohar Lal2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amendment to the pleadings can be permitted when the nature of case originally set up by the plaintiff does not change and does not introduce any fresh cause of action. It was also held that when the amendment was relevant for deciding the question before the court, the amendment could be permitted. It was also held that delay on part of the party filing the applications would have to be considered for condoning, after the explanation for delay is detailed. 5. In the matter of Surender Kumar Sharma V/s Makhan Singh3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that amendment of plaint could not be rejected mainly on the ground of delay and that the court would have to permit amendment if it does not Change the nature and character of suit. 6. It is submitted that the amendment sought for by the petitioner would not change the nature of suit nor would it change the character of the suit. As such the petitioner is entitled for p. 4 2 2017 (5) SCC 212 3 2009 (10) SCC 626 amendment of the plaint. It is submitted that the learned judge erred in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the contrary submits that the amendment is sought for at a very belated stage when the matter was posted for arguments and that only after the Advocate Commissioner had submitted his report, the plaintiff sought for amending the suit schedule property. It is submitted that such an amendment would amount to improving the case of the plaintiff after completion of trial. It is submitted that such an amendment is not permissible in law. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 9. The short point for consideration is Whether the petitioner is entitled for amending the plaint on the present set of facts and circumstances ? 10. Admittedly the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner at a very belated stage when the matter was posted for arguments. Even assuming for a moment that the petition can be maintained at the belated stage, the nature of amendment as sought for by the petitioner would change the character of the suit. Such an amendment is not permissible under law. The plaintiff has p. 5 sought for amending the schedule and incorporating the findings of the advocate commissioner's report into the pleadings. Such an act on the part of the petitioner would amount to changing the nature of the suit as well as giving rise to a fresh cause of action. Such amendments are impermissible under law. 11. On these considerations, this Court is of the concerned view that the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge Ananthapuram is well considered and well reasoned and does not deserve any interference. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.03.2026 PNS p. 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3364 OF 2019 Dated 09.03.2026 PNS