I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON Nos.264&284 of 2018

17.11.2025 Between:

Smt. D. Pushpamala (died per LRs)

… Petitioners AND Kankanti Narayan Reddy (died per LRs), and Others … Respondents

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitionsare filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the common order dated 26.12.2017 in I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2017 in O.S.No.63 of 2006 while I.A.No.218 of 2017 was filed under Order VIRule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint; I.A.No.219 of 2017 was filed seeking reopening of the suit for carrying out amendments.

2. Both the I.As were disposed of by way of a common order dated 26.12.2017. Though the I.A orders were assailed under two different revision petitions, but as a lead, the Civil Revision Petition No.264 of 2018 was filed being aggrieved by the dismissal of the amendment application vide I.A.No.218 of 2017. If the Court comes to a conclusion that the amendment which is sought has to be allowed, then the question of reopening of the suit arises. As such, this Court is of the opinion that, initially, the aspect of whether the amendment is required, and if so, whether the suit has to be reopened for the said purpose, has to be considered.

3. Heard Sri M.Damodar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 19 and the other respondents were only made a formal parties and they are not being made necessary parties to these revisions. Perused the record.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S. No.63 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahabubnagar. Pending suit, the present applications were filed by the petitioner/plaintiff contending that the suit was posted for judgment. At that stage, when the plaintiff was verifying the plaint and the evidence of the defendants, she noticed that there was no mentioning of the survey numbers and the total extent of plaint “B” schedule having common boundaries, and that without specifying the extent of the survey numbers, she also noticed that family lands covered by different survey numbers were omitted in plaint “B” schedule, and that thesaid omission was neither intentional nor wanton, and that the reason for the same was due to the counsel, and that earlier counsel failed to show the schedule property, of all the survey numbers and extent owned by the petitioner's family, and the said omissions were noticed recently after engaging a new counsel, and that the mentioning of the said survey numbers is material for effective adjudication of the matter. Ultimately, if the suit is decreed without schedule amendment and showing the extent of survey numbers and not including the existing survey numbers, much problem would arise in the execution of the decree that may be passed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the application for reopening the suit and permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint “B” schedule property and consequently valuation of the properties.

5. Though the said application was contested by the respondents and defendants by filing the counter, contending that the same is being filed at a belated stage, that too after conclusion of the trial and arguments, and that the petitioner has no bonafides in filing the application at a belated stage, and it is an attempt to drag on the matter, and the allegations that the same was noticed recently after the change of advocate is only a reason and lame excuse invented for the purpose of this case, and that too, to fill up the lacunas, and seems that the petitioner is laying foundation to file some more applications under the guise of the proposed amendment, and that there are no grounds to reopen the suit and also to permit the petitioner for amendment of the plain