IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2154 OF 2022 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2022 passed in l.A. No.486 of 2022 in O.S No.122 of 2013 on the file of the lll Addl. District Judge, at Karimnagar.

Between:

1. D. Anantha Kumar @ Annatha Kumar Reddy, S/o. Kondal Reddy, age 47 years, Occ: Business.

2. D. Ahalya Wo. Anantha Kumar@Annatha Kumar Reddy, Age 40 years, Occ: House wife and business, (Both are R/o. H.No.2-10-878, SS Residency, Flat No.204, Kattarampur, Karimnagar Town.)

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/OEFENDANTS AND Baddam Yella Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Age 68 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o.H.No.8-1999/6, Reddy Colony, Kattarampur, Karimnagar Town.

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.122 of 2013 on the file of lll Addl. District Judge, at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above CRP.

Counsel for the Petitioner:Smt. R. MADHAVI LATHA Counsel for the Respondent: Sri. C. RUTHWIK REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'l LE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUIT St[fi:tl,l\THA OIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2154

ORDER:

Heard he submission of the learned cou:rsel lor the petitioners :r ; r,r,ell as the learned counsel app,::ar.Lng for respondent

2. Challer: ge in this revision petition is the orcler that is renderecl by the Court of III Additional Dist:ir:t Judge, Karimnagar n I.A.No.486 of 2022 in O.S No. 121,1 ,ri 2013 dated07 09.. O22

3. The r,: vision petitioners who are th e del'end zmts to the suit mo' ed an application under Section r 51 CPC, seeking the (. ourt to permit them to file arlditional rvritten statement. iuch request was dishonorecl anc -herefore, the revision etitioners are belore this Court.

1.

4 karn,, d counsel for the revision p etit.ioners contends th:r , the petitioners were not arvane ol tLLe fact that the re-" rondent plaintiff sought for arnenrlnrent of plaint and gc; plaint amended and after tht:y cann,,: tc know that the plair: was amended, they moved ar-l applir:ation for

2 DT CSL, J CRP.No.2l54 of2022 filing additional written statement but the Court did not permit the petitioners to file additional written statement. Learned counsel submits that in case such permission is accorded, the revision petitioners would put forth their case through the additional written statement, hence, such arl opportunity may be accorded.

5.

Per contra, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the trial of the suit is completed and when the suit was coming up for arguments, an application for according permission to lile additional written statement was filed and dealing with all the aspects, the said petition was dismissed and hence, the order that is rendered needs no interference.

6.

A perusal of record reveals that initially suit was filed for recovery of money and subsequently, got amended as mortgage suit. The Court in the impugned order made an observation that the revision petitioners filed written statement on 08.O 1.2020 and thereaJter, issues were framed on 20.0L.2020 and one of the issues framed that is issue No.4 is "whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree". Admittedly, evidence would be J D CRr rl ' S \ ,, 2J 151of2022 adduced by roth parties to the proceedings u,ith rr:gard to the issues fr rmed. Therefore, it cannot be presr.tnrcd that without knc ving about the issues framed, the: revision petitioners 1roceeded with the trial of the ,:ase, cross \

examined th, witnesses of the plaintiff arrd ad,lt,tc,:,1 their I evidence. ''hat apart, the trial court ma

r No.2/defendr, nt No.2 to the respondent plaintiff ar; :x-'curit5r were also pr rt. Therefore, it cannot be hel,l th.at the petitioners w 're not aware of the amendmr'nt of the plaint. The petitions lor amendment ol pleadings canno: trr: filed, and adclitionr, I pleadings cannot be permitted to be allowed as and when 'equired. Having found no justifiaL,k grounds to permit the revision petitioners to file actditio -ri,Ll written statement, th : trial Court disallowed their requer;t, 7. This C: urt does not {ind any reasons wh,llsoe,ver to interfere with the well reasoned order of thr: trirrl rlourt. Therefore, thr, revision petition is dismissed, con:irming the order that is 'endered by the Court of III Additional District I Dr. CsL. J CRP.No.2l54 of2022 Judge, Karimnagar in I'A'No'486 of 2022 in O'S'No'122 of

2013 dated 07 -o9-2022.

petitions pending' if any'

8 As a sequel, miscellaneous shall stand closed.

Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANI-REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// <--lt)

\

SECTION OFFICER To, .

1 The lll Additional District Judge Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

2. One CC to Sri R. MADHAVI LATHA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri C. RUTHWIK REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

4.

Two CD Copies h HIGH COURT DT.CSL,J OATEDi27h0l20 t2 -

-:l'-

\ \\ 7[ p]

ntt ORDER CRP.No.2154 of 2022 DISMISSINGTHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOL'f ('OSI'I -$.j)