IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

CIVIL REVIS ON PETITION NO: 1188 0F 2022

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the orders dated 14.03.2022 in l.A.No. 209 0f 2022 in o.S.No.',l77 0f ²⁰²¹ on the file of the court of the XX Junior civil Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad .

Between:

• ¹ l,4ir Kazim Ali , son of Late [/ir Dawood Ali, aged about 86 years' OcitRetired Erproy"", ilo. H.No.22-6-1036, lrani Galli, Charminar, Hyderabad- 500 002
• l.4ir Hvder Ali. S/o. Late l\r'tir Dawood AIi, aged about 80 years, Occ Busine-ls. R/o.H.No.22-8-l0ll,Miralamlr,4andi,lranrGalli,Charminar,Hydera0a0-5uu 002. 2
• Mir Abbas Ali, S/o. Late Mir Dawood Ali, aged about 78 y91r:rg9q Business' nlo. ff f.fo.ZZ-Z-430, Purani Haveli, Charmihar, Hyderabad- 500 002' 3

...PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS

AND

• 1. Tahsildar, Charminar [r/andal, Hyderabad.
• 2. All Concerned, All Concerned.

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. KHAJA MOINUDDIN

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1188 OF 2022 ORDER:

Heard Mr.Khaja Moinuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioners were plaintiffs in O.S.No.177 of 2021. The $\mathcal{L}$ suit was filed against defendant No.1 for refusal to issue legal heir certificate. In the suit petitioners numbering 3 declared themselves as sons of late Mir Dawood Ali. The suit was City Junior Civil Judge, XX the decreed by Civil Court, Hyderabad vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.2021 declaring the plaintiffs (petitioners) as the legal heirs of deceased late Mir Dawood Ali. After pronouncement of judgment, petitioners filed interlocutory applications to amend the name of late Mir Dawood Ali by replacing the same with late Mir Dawood Ali Khan. After hearing the parties, learned Court below passed the order dated 14.03.2022 holding as follows:

"As per Order VI Rule 17 CPC, that amendment of pleading can be allowed before trial. However for any amendment which is to be allowed after commencement of trial as commenced, the Court must come to a conclusion inspite of due diligence,

the parties could not raise the matter before commencement of the trial.

In the case on hand, the present petition is 6. filed after the Judgment has been pronounced in the Further the reason that has been main suit. attributed for filing the present petition at such belated stage after passing the Judgment is that "due to oversight and mistake". As per Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court must come to a conclusion that the party seeking amendment has taken all care even after which such error had crept in. Further Section 152 of CPC, lays down provision with regard to amendment of Judgments, Decrees, Orders which lays down clerical or arithmetical mistakes in Judgments, Decrees or Orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court". From the above provision it can be seen that only clerical and arithmetical mistakes can be corrected. The present situation under which the present petitioners have been filed does not fall into the category of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and therefore this Court sees no reason for allowing the present petitions at this stage.

In the result, the petitions are dismissed".

Thus, what the learned Court below has held is that 3. ordinarily an amendment of pleading should be allowed before trial commences. However, once the trial is commenced, amendment of pleading can only be allowed if the Court is satisfied that despite due diligence the parties could not raise the matter before commencement of trial. In

the instance case, the interlocutory applications came to be filed after pronouncement of judgment.

4. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides for amendment of judgments, decrees or orders. It says that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or crrors arising thercin from any accidental slip or omission made may at any time be corrected by the Court either by on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. In the instant case, there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment aLnd decree. The judgment and decrcc rcflccts description of thc party as made in the plaint. It may also be mentioned that there are threc petitioncrs and aLl of them described themselves as sons oI latc Mjr Dawood Ali; nonc pointed that the actua-l name of their father should havc bcen Mir Dawood Ali Khan.

5. In the hearing today, learned counsel for thc petitioners was asked by the Court as to whcther thcre is any documentary evidcnce to show that latc Mir l)awood Ali and late Mir Dau,ood AIi Khan is onc and thc samc pcrson but learned counscl could not producc any such documcnt.

I

There is even no document to show that petitioners are the sons of late Mir Dawood Ali Khan.

6. We thus do not lind any good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below.

7 The Civil revision pctition is accordingly dismissed.

8. Miscellancous pctitions if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand close d,

//TRUE COPY, SECTION OFF ICER

sd/-K.SAILESHI

DEPUTY REGIS

To,

l.TheXXJuniorCivilJudge,CityCivilCourtatHyderabad' 2. One CC to SRI' KHAJA MOINUDDIN Advocate [OPUCI

3. Two CD CoPies 4. One SPare CoPY

* CDL ,I

HIGH COURT

DATED:14/06/2022

ORDER

CRP.No.1188 of 2022

DISMISSING THE CRP.