##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.3436 OF 2025

DATE : 23.12.2025

Between:

Arey Manamma

…Petitioner

AND

Devarakonda Shankaramurthy Died & Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard, Ms.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.T.Dayananda Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

23.08.2024 passed in E.A. No. 06 of 2024 in E.P. No. 12 of 2021 by

the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

3. The revision petitioner is the decree holder. The brief facts

relevant for adjudication are that the revision petitioner/decree

holder/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 16 of 2005 seeking recovery of a

sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- with interest. The said suit was decreed on

2

31.01.2011. In execution of the decree, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 06

of 2024 in E.P. No. 12 of 2021 seeking amendment of the schedule

property of the judgment debtors, by correcting the house number as

H.No. 4-3-38 in place of H.Nos. 4-3-3 and 4-3-40. The said application,

however, was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated

23.08.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree holder

submitted that the Executing Court dismissed the application on the

ground that the prayer sought in the amendment petition did not

include all consequential amendments, which, according to the Court,

is impermissible under Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Learned

counsel therefore prays that the petitioner may be granted liberty to file

a fresh application before the Executing Court, incorporating all

consequential amendments, and that appropriate directions may be

issued for expeditious disposal of such application.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/judgment

debtors submitted that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity

properly before the Executing Court by not filing a comprehensive

petition. However, he fairly submitted that the respondents have no

objection if liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application

and if the matter is remitted for reconsideration by the Executing Court.

3

6. I have perused the material available on record.

7. Having considered the submissions made by both sides and on

examination of the impugned order, it is evident that the application for

amendment was dismissed primarily on the procedural ground that the

prayer did not encompass all consequential changes in the execution

proceedings, as required under Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice,

which mandates that an amendment application must specify all

consequential alterations necessary for carrying out the intended

correction.

8. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai [(2000) 1 SCC

712], held that the object of permitting amendment is to avoid

multiplicity of proceedings and to enable the Court to decide the real

controversy between the parties. Similarly, in State of Bihar v. Ram

Naresh Pandey [AIR 1957 SC 389], it was observed that procedural

technicalities should not override the cause of justice when no

prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

9. Applying these principles, this Court is of the view that since the

dismissal of the petitioner’s application was on technical grounds, and

as the respondents have not raised any substantive objection to a

4

fresh filing, granting an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the

procedural defect and file a comprehensive petition is just and proper.

10. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

a) The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application before the

Executing Court, incorporating all necessary and consequential

amendments in accordance with law.

b) Upon such filing, the Executing Court shall consider and dispose

of the application expeditiously, in accordance with law, after providing

due opportunity of hearing to both parties.

c) It is