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

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.

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 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