Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 7398
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Mumtaz Begum died – Appellant
Versus
Umme Kulsoom Akhtar Sultana – Respondent
CRP/150/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Srinivas Reddy
For the Respondents:
A petition to amend a plaint filed after a significant delay lacks justification and is not permitted at the final argument stage.
Headnote:This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges an order for amending the plaint that was brought after an 18-year gap with no sufficient justification. The court finds no error in the trial court’s decision which is deemed consistent with law and instructs for the early conclusion of the suit. The petition is rejected without merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to amend plaint filed after significant delay lacks justification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court finds no jurisdictional error or merit in the petition. (Para 4) |
| 3. the civil revision petition is rejected. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.156 of 2024 in O.S.No.3010 of 2006 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs before the trail court. The petitioners had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit is of the year 2006. Today, the suit has matured enough and has reached the stage of final arguments. At this juncture, the petitioner/plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.156 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 7 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure . Vide the said I.A. the plaintiffs sought for amending the plaint and the relief sought in the plaint by claiming mesne profit also for the period the respondents were in possession of the suit schedule property.
4. As has been mentioned earlier, the suit is of the year 2006, the suit has reached its fag end and is at the stage of final arguments.
I.A.No.156 of 2024 seeking for amending the pliant has been filed after a gap of 18 years and no plausible explanation available to justify the delayed amendment sought for. The amendment sought for, under no circumstances is on account of any subsequent development or based upon any defence that has been raised by the either side. There is no reason why the said amendment could not be sought for at an earlier stage, hence, this relief cannot be sought for, at the fag end stage of the suit.
5. This Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners to hold that the order passed by the trial court is either erroneous or there being any jurisdictional error or being contrary to law. The Civil Revision Petition thus being devoid of merits and it deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Considering the fact that the suit has reached its fag end, the trial court is directed to ensure early conclusion of the same.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
