IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2294 of 2024

07^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 Between:

Mrs. Keetha Shoba Rani, L.B.Nagar.

…Petitioner AND Mr. Bonala Bixamaiah, Suryapet and another.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr. V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner (defendant No.2) aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2024 passed in I.A. No. 126 of 2024 in O.S. No. 93 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, wherein, a petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the written statement for the purpose of adding paragraph No.10(a) to the written statement, has been dismissed.

3. Initially, respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has filed the suit in O.S. No. 93 of 2019 for recovery of money against the deceased defendant No.1. The said deceased defendant No.1 has filed the written statement and after his death, during pendency of the suit, his legal heirs i.e., the petitioner herein and her daughter were brought on record. Thereafter, trial commenced, evidence of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 has been completed and the matter is at the stage of recording of defendant’s evidence. At the time of cross examination of the petitioner herein as D.W.1, the I.A. under revision has been filed for the purpose of carrying out amendment i.e., adding paragraph No.10(a) to the written statement.

4. Respondent No.1 (plaintiff) opposed the petition by filing counter alleging that as per Order XXII Rule 4(2) of the CPC, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 is not permitted to take a plea which is not taken by the original defendant to the suit. Further, it is held that the application is filed only at the stage of recording of cross examination of D.W.1 to overcome the lacuna in the pleadings and therefore, the I.A. under revision has been dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the present revision pleading that adding the additional paragraph to the written statement would not change the nature of the suit and that the amendment is not contrary to the plea taken by the deceased defendant No.1 about repayment of loan amount. Lastly, it is submitted that for the purpose of rendering substantial justice, the amendment is to be permitted.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in support of his case relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand¹ and Baldev Singh and Others vs Manohar Singh and Another². In case of Baldev Singh and Others (Supra), wherein, it is held that “…apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments”.

AIR 2008 SCC 2234

AIR 2006 SCC 2832

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that amendment can be carried out even up to the stage of addressing of arguments. In the instant case, the matter is still at the stage of recording of evidence of D.W.1 and therefore, it is submitted that the revision petitioner is entitled to carry out the amendment as prayed for.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the revision alleging that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is very clear about permission to amendment prior to commencement of trial and not thereafter. It is emphasized that the revision petitioner was brought on record after the death of her husband and ever since she participated in the suit proceedings. Further, the revision petitioner has cross examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and did not take any steps for amendment at that time. Only after filing of the chief affidavit and commencement of cross examination, the amendment petition i.e., I.A under revision has been filed. The conduct of the re