THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2754 of 2023

ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2023 in I.A. No. 2365 of 2021 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Medchal.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the Defendants in the main Suit filed by the respondent herein vide O.S. No. 110 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of CPC for cancellation of sale deed and are the respondents in the underlying application filed by the respondent/petitioner.

3. The respondent herein had filed an interlocutory application under order VI rule 17 r/w/ section 151 of CPC for amendment of pleadings.

4. The petitioners herein contend that the underlying interlocutory application is neither maintainable in law nor on facts, and has been filed to withdraw prior pleadings and introduce a false and concocted version of events. The petitioners further contend that the respondent herein has willfully concealed material facts, making the proposed amendment unjust and detrimental to the petitioner’s legal rights, as it alters the nature of the suit and the amendment application is filed with malafide intent to overcome the bar of limitation under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

5. The petitioners also contend that the Trial Court failed to consider that the amendment introduces a new and inconsistent cause of action, thereby altering the very nature and character of the suit. It also amounts to the withdrawal of earlier admissions made in the plaint, which is impermissible in law and causes serious prejudice to the petitioners.

6. The Trial Court upon hearing both sides and on perusal the record, observed that all question of facts such as whether the alleged amended portion is genuine or concocted, and whether there is suppression of material facts by the respondent herein must be decided at the time of trial, not at the stage of deciding the amendment application.

7. The Trial Court further observed that, based on the pleadings of the respondent/petitioner, it cannot be concluded that there is any withdrawal of earlier admissions or pleadings. It further held that, while parties are expected to maintain integrity in their pleadings, even if there is an omission or suppression, such lapse alone is not sufficient to reject the amendment application, particularly in view of the principle of substantial justice.

8. The Trial Court observed that, when an amendment is made the key concern is that no injustice should be caused to the other party and held that, in the present case, no such injustice would result from allowing the amendment, as the issues involved are factual and both parties will have equal opportunity to prove or disprove them during trial. In result, the amendment application was allowed, subject to payment of costs of ₹1,500 by the respondent/petitioner to the petitioners/respondents.

9. Heard Sri C. Shanmukha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

10. From a perusal of the underlying Interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., before the trial court, the respondent herein has sought for amendment of his plaint pleadings. The proposed amendments sought for are: to add para no. 8(a) and (b) in plaint after para no.8, to add clause (b) and (c) in the valuation column and to add clause (B) in prayer of the plaint.

11. Since, the petition is filed invoking the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC., it is apt to refer to the same, which reads as follows: -

Amendment of pleadings:

“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendm