Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be allowed if they seek to withdraw a categorical admission or are filed after the trial has commenced without proving due diligence, as such amendments cause prejudice to the opposing party.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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 to The above named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order dated 23-06-2025 passed in I.A.No.368 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.9 of 2024, on the file of Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam for the following grounds among other

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 grant stay of ail further proceedings in G.W.O.P.No.9 of 2024 on the file of Principal District Krishna, Machiiipatnam pending disposal of the main C.R.P Judge, and pass

The Court made the following order:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 23.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.368 of 2025 in G.W.O.P.No.9/2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

The facts that led to filing of this revision are hereunder:

The petitioner herein filed G.W.O.P.No.9 of 2024 against the respondent herein under Sections 7 & 10 of the Guardian & Wards Act r/w Section 8(5) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act duly praying the court to appoint the petitioner as guardian of Minor by name Done Donndi Satya Veeraraju and to grant permission for taking custody of the minor from the respondent. In the said petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.368/2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to permit him to delete the averments in para No.1 from 6th line to end of the para and para No.2 and to insert new paras in that place described and permit him for consequential amendments. The said application was opposed by the respondent by way of filing a counter. After hearing the parties, the court below has dismissed the said application under its order dated 23.06.2025 on the ground that petition relating to matrimonial disputes, amendments of pleadings at the fag end of the proceedings is not allowed, which changes the entire structure of the framing of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.

Heard Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of the revision and the contents of the affidavit filed before the court below contended that, while drafting the O.P., certain averments which are not true, were mentioned by mistake, as such, the petitioner wants to withdraw the said averments and made an application for amendment of pleadings but the court below has erroneously dismissed the said application on the ground that amendments of pleadings at the fag end of the proceedings is not allowed, which changes the entire structure of the framing of the petition. He further submitted that, the court below failed to see that the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage before pronouncement of the judgment, if the parties prove due diligence. He further submitted that, no prejudice will be caused to respondent if the said amendments are allowed and that it would not change the nature of the petition. The court below failed to see the purport of Order VI rule 17 in a right perspective and has erroneously dismissed the application causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner. Accordingly prayed to allow the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed before the court below submitted that, the averments sought to be withdrawn amounts to withdrawal of a categorical admission, which is not permissible in law. Even otherwise, cross-examination of the petitioner was also com