IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY. THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 157 OF 2020

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the Order dated 02.01.2020 passed in I.A. No. 4418/2019 in O.S. No.149/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-XVIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, At Malkaigiri, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

Sri C.S. Mukunda Rao, S/ o. Late. Sri. Satvanarayana Rao, Aged about 34 years. Occupation: Business, R/o. H.No.3-249, Macha Bollaram, Alwal Muncipality, R.R. District.

...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.2

AND

1. Smt. Ushasree, D/o. B.M. Ramchander, Aged about 40 years, Occupation: Teacher, W/o. Sri. Yadaiah, R/o. 3-341/1, Krishna Nagar Colony, Macha Bollaram, Alwal Muncipality, R.R. District.

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

2. Sri P. Santosh Kumar Goud, S/ o. Sri Kumar Goud, Aged about 45 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o H.No.2-2-178/1/6, Macha Bollaram, Alwal Muncipality, R.R. District

...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT NO.1

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

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.149/2017 on the file of the Honorable I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, R.R.District.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S ASHOK ANAND KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. V SANGEETHA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

-7

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

CML REVISION PETITION No.157 of 2O2O

ORDER:

--.-rt ffi- ,t/

Aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed by the ^I Additional Junior Civil Judgc cr-rm-XVIII Additional Me tropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Mzrlkajgirr, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.44t8 of 2019 in O.S.No. 149 of 2017, dated 02.O7.2O2O, the petitioner u,ho is the defendant No.2 has preferred the present revision petitron.

For the sakc ol cortveniencc, hereinafter, the parties rvill be reterrecl as per their array befort: the triai Cour-t.

The bricf facts of tlre casc' arc that the petitioner who is the defenciant N o.2 {ilcd an application under orcler VI rule 1 ⁷ read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission lor amendment of rvritten stalement fiied on behalf of defc'ndant I,lo.2 at page No.2, para tlo.3 the worcl plaintiff may be substituted in place o[ defcndant No.2, at page No.2 at para No.4 at line No. 12 the word developer may be substituted in place of defendant No. l, at line No. 18 worcl Developer may be substituted in place of defendant, page No.2, para No.5, at lincr No.3 the word tievelopel' may be substituted in piace of defendant No. I and at lirre No.13 the wc.rrd devdioper may be substituted irr place of defendant No.1 and conscquential amendments q.Lrerever the same vras rnentionecl. - '".'

It is the contention of the petitioner that he has recently taken no objection vakalath from his earlier counsel on 11.12.2019 and he has engaged present counsel and on verification of the record, his counsel suggested that written statement filed on his behalf by his earlier counsel has to be amended. It is further alleged that in his written statement at page 2 para 3, "it was mentioned as in reply to para III (4), it is not true to state that the Tenancy is oral and the defendant No.1 is the tenant of defendant No.2. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same". But it has to be as plaintiff in place of defendant No.2.

It is also contended that at page-2 para-4 at line-12 of the written statement it is mentioned as defendant No.1 has postponed the registration, but it has to be mentioned as developer as postponed the registration. In the same para at line NO.18, it was mentioned as "the suit was filed against defendant and the present plaintiff", but it has to mention as Developer in place of defendant. Like wise in his written statement at page No.2 para 5 at Line 3 it was mentioned as defendant No.1, but it has to be mentioned as Developer in place of defendant No.1. Further at page No.3, Line No.7, it was stated as defendant No.1, but it has to be mentioned as Developer in place of defendant No.1 and at page No.3, line

$\overset{\text{\tiny 2}}{=}$

No. 13 it was stated as dcfendant No. 1, but it has to be me ntioned as Developer in place ol defendant No. l.

It is also contended that the above mistake is clerical/ rypographical, therefore, the same has to be rectihed by way of amendment and the same would not alter the nature of the suit, if he is not permitted to amend the written statement, he would be put to irreparable [oss. Hence the application.

Respondent No. 1 / Plaintiff hled counter stating that the suit is posted for arguments, at that stage the present application is frled and the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and the petitioner and defendant No.1 are sailing in the same boat and filed this application in order to delay the proceedings. Further thc respondent/ plaintiff is working in a private school for meager salary and appearing before the Court by applying leave and the petitioner never attended the court from the date of ftling the written statement and getting updates from the other defendant, as such, the petitioner is arvare of proceedings and that the no objection was obtained from previous counsel long back, but the petitioner has not appeared in the Court and that the request of the petitioner wa.s considered by the Court and w'as given opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff (PW- 1.) and at the stage of arguments, the petitioner carne up with this application after the argumenti were heard on behalf of the plaintiff ancl

that the written statement cannot be amended after completion of trial. Hence prayed to dismiss the application.

Before the trial Court. no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties. However, considering all the aspects, the trial Court has dismissed the application.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

For the sake of convenience, Order VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C. is mentioned below:

17. Amendment of Pleadings – the Court may at any stage at 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 view of the above settled law, this Court has perused the prayer of the revision petitioner in the present case. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the petitioner/defendant No.2 has recently taken no objection vakalath from his earlier counsel and on 11.12.2019 he has

$\mathbf{1}$

engaged another counsel who has verified the entire record and advised the revision petitioner that the writtcn state mcnt llled on his behalf by his earlier counsel has to be amended. Based on the same, the revision petitioner has filcd an application seeking amendment of his pleadings as stated above.

It is pertinent to state that law provides for amendment of pleadings imposed a condition that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spitc of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The present case on hand is taken into consideration, the arguments have already completed and it has been posted for written arguments. Even as per the records, it discloses that the trial Court has given ample opportunities to the petitioner/defendant No.2 at every stage of proceedings. Further as per the revision petitioner/defendant No.2, it is the prayer to change the plaintiff as defendant and defendant as plaintiff, which is totally against the consequence of written statement filed by him. Further it appears that rhe amendment sought by the revision petitioner that most of the contents of the written statement has to be amended, which u,ill dehnitely change the nature of the suir. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the

I

)

/

\ I application, for which interference of this Court is not necessary. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/-MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

• 1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.
• 2. One CC to SRI. S ASHOK ANAND KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRI. V SANGEETHA, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

$pr_{\zeta}$

HIGH COURT MGP, J DATED: 18/07/2023

ORDER CRP.No.157 of 2020

DISMISSING THE CRP

WITHOUT COSTS