Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Thota Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
Thota Laxmi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's interpretation of procedural law under order vi rule 17. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments regarding amendment rights and their implications. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. consequences of allowing amendments after trial commencement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 5. legal principles relating to amendments as illustrated by case law. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. final dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
The unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff in I.A. No. 210 of 2025 in O.S. No. 42 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mancherial, filed this revision.
2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the Suit.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of Schedule A to G of property, claiming that all the properties are joint family properties inherited from his father. When the matter was posted for defendants' further evidence, plaintiff had taken out the subject I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to permit him amend the plaint by including Schedule-H property along all the consequential amendments.
3.1. The plea of pla
Amendments to pleadings should be granted only if they do not prejudice the other party; if the amendment is sought after trial has commenced, due diligence must be established.
Point of law: Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury....
Amendments to pleadings must be made in good faith and should not cause prejudice to the opposing party, especially if they seek to withdraw prior admissions.
Amendments to pleadings may be allowed post-trial if due diligence is demonstrated, and if they do not change the cause of action or result in injustice.
Court allows amendment to plaint for effective adjudication, emphasizing necessity over procedural delay and potential multiplicity of proceedings, while ensuring justice is served.
The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings are permissible at any stage before trial commencement, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification of delay and due diligence; lack of valid reasons leads to rejection to prevent prejudice.
The delay in seeking amendment can be compensated by way of costs, and the court can invoke supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside unsustainable orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
