Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Thota Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
Thota Laxmi – Respondent
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 plaintiff is that he obtained knowledge and possession of documents relating to land in Survey No 72/97/1 admeasuring Acs.5.00 situated at Naspur Revenue Village, Mancherial and the said property was originally held by his father and subsequently mutated in the name of his mother- Defendant No.1 and the said property was inadvertently omitted in the original plaint schedule and now he secured the relevant pahani records which reflects transfer of property in his mother’s name. D
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.
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.
(1) Amendment of plaint – At stage of amendment, merits or correctness of plea sought to be added is not required to be gone into.(2) Amendment of plaint – Partition suit – Mere delay in filing petit....
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
